Opinion of May 21, 2009, Withdrawn; Affirmed and Corrected Memorandum Opinion filed June 4, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-08-00727-CR

____________

TERRY WELDON ANDERSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 114th District Court

Wood County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 13,786-93

C O R R E C T E D   M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

We withdraw the opinion issued May 21, 2009 and issue a corrected opinion in its place to correct the trial court number.

 Appellant entered a guilty plea to murder.  After a pre-sentence investigation, on November 15, 1993, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for life in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and assessed a fine of $5,000.  Appellant filed a notice of appeal, and the Twelfth Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.  See Anderson v. State, No. 12‑93‑00312‑CR (Tex. App.CTyler Jun. 29, 1994, no pet.).  The Court of Criminal Appeals= granted appellant=s application for post-conviction writ of habeas corpus and ordered that appellant was entitled to file an out-of-time appeal.  See Ex Parte Anderson, No. AP-75,942 (Tex. Crim. App. Jun. 18, 2008) (not designated for publication).  Appellant then filed a pro se notice of appeal, and this appeal was transferred to this Court pursuant to a docket equalization order from the Texas Supreme Court..

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant.  Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  At appellant=s request, the record was provided to him, and appellant has filed a pro se response to counsel=s brief.

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel=s brief, and appellant=s response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find no reversible error in the record.  A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.  We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.  Appellant=s motion to dismiss the underlying case, which was carried with the appeal, is denied.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Seymore.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).