Appellant Donna Kay Seymore pled guilty to three indictments: one for burglary of a habitation, one for theft, and one that alleged two counts of delivery of a controlled substance and one count of delivery of a dangerous drug. The trial court convicted Seymore on all counts and assessed punishment at five years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division for burglary of a habitation, two years of confinement in a state jail facility for theft, and sentences of two years of confinement in a state jail facility for each count of delivery of a controlled substance and two years of confinement in a state jail facility for delivery of a dangerous drug. All the sentences were to run concurrently.

On appeal, Seymore's counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the records and concludes the appeals are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On September 27, 2007, we granted an extension of time in each case for Seymore to file a pro se brief. Seymore filed a pro se response that addressed all three appeals. The Court of Criminal Appeals directs that we not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (1) "that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error" or (2) "that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues." Id.

We have determined that these appeals are wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the clerk's records and the reporter's records, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support these appeals. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgments. ⁽¹⁾

AFFIRMED.

_______________________________

STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on February 5, 2008

Opinion Delivered February 13, 2008

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

1. Appellant may challenge our decision in these cases by filing petitions for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.