Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 26, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-11-01029-CR

MAXIMO GARZA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1288955

MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted appellant of possession of a controlled substance greater than 400 grams, namely cocaine, and sentenced him to confinement for thirty-five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she 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), by advancing contentions which might arguably support the appeal. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); and Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 Tex. Crim. App. 1974).

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. (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record.

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 Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Jamison.

Do Not Publish — Tex.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