Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 30, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-09-00028-CR

____________

MARVIN LEE WATTS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 97111

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a guilty plea to aggravated robbery.  On August 14, 2006, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and ordered appellant placed on community supervision for ten years.  The State moved to revoke appellant=s community supervision on November 24, 2008.  Appellant entered a plea of true to three of the seven counts in the State=s motion.  On December 8, 2008, the trial court adjudicated appellant=s guilt and sentenced him to confinement for fifteen years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-12 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).  The State filed a responsive brief, acknowledging that the Anders requirements have been satisfied and agreeing that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal.

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).  As of this date, more than sixty days has elapsed and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel=s brief, and the State=s brief, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find no reversible error in the record.  A discussion of the briefs 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.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Yates and Frost.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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