Opinion issued April 22, 2010

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-09-00266-CR

____________

MARCUS DAWAYNE BRONSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1154320

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          A jury found appellant, Marcus Dawayne Bronson, guilty of the offense of aggravated robbery, and the trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for twenty years.

          Appellant’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and detailing why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Id.; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). The brief also reflects that counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

          When this Court receives an Anders brief from a defendant’s court-appointed appellate counsel, we conduct a review of the entire record to determine whether the appeal is frivolous, i.e., whether it presents any arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d at 511. An appeal is frivolous when it does not present any argument that could “conceivably persuade the court.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In our review, we consider appellant’s pro se response, if any, to his counsel’s Anders brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).           Appellant has filed a pro se response, contending in two issues that the investigating police officer impermissibly suggested that the complainant select appellant out of the in-person line-up and appellant did not have a lawyer present at the line-up. Having reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se response, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit and that there is no reversible error. See id.

Conclusion

          We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771–72 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (per curiam).

                                                                        Terry Jennings

                                                                        Justice

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Hanks, and Bland.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).