COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Shawn Cody Coleman appeals his conviction, following a motion to adjudicate, for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and possession of a prohibited weapon. Appellant was sentenced to serve twelve and seven years concurrently, in the institutional division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Affirmed

            Appellant’s appointed counsel, has filed a brief in which he concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Appellate counsel states that he has studied the record and has found no error preserved for appeal that could serve as grounds for reversible error. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record, and demonstrating why, in effect, 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 has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

            An appellate court may not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders brief, or those raised in a pro se response. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). The Court may only consider: (1) whether the appeal is wholly frivolous, and issue an opinion explaining that we have reviewed the record and found no reversible error; or (2) whether arguable grounds for appeal exist, and if so, remand the case to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to address those issues. Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27.

            Having carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief in this case, we agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

October 5, 2011

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)