A jury found Mark Allen Rose guilty of two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. See Act of May 28, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 528, § 2, 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 1805, 1806-07 (current version at Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.021 (Vernon Supp. 2009)). The jury assessed punishment at fifty years of confinement for each offense. The trial court sentenced Rose to fifty years of confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and ordered that the sentences run concurrently.

On appeal, Rose's counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is 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 April 30, 2009, we granted an extension of time for the appellant to file a pro se brief. The pro se response filed by the appellant contends that the trial court erred in not fully admitting the court-ordered psychological evaluation of appellant into evidence, not allowing further accommodations to assist him in understanding and assisting his attorney when he has a mental deficiency, denying his requests for different mental health experts and an investigator, allowing evidence at trial regarding a count of the indictment that the State abandoned, allowing the prosecutor to rely on irrelevant case law, permitting his prior criminal record that was "not completed and correct" to be introduced into evidence, and allowing the jury to view a video appellant had not viewed.

In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, we may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error, or (2) that arguable grounds for the appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. See id. at 826-27; cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment. ⁽¹⁾

AFFIRMED.

___________________________

DAVID GAULTNEY

Justice

Submitted on December 28, 2009

Opinion Delivered January 20, 2010

Do Not Publish

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

1. Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.