Motion to Withdraw Granted, Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 21, 2012.

In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-12-00076-CR ____________ RUSSELL CHRISTOPHER VITATOE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 10-10255

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant entered a plea of guilty to attempted aggravated sexual assault, enhanced by a prior felony conviction. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, on April 11, 2011, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate appellant’s guilt, alleging that appellant had violated eight conditions of his community supervision. Appellant entered a plea of true to five counts in the motion. On January 9, 2012, the trial court adjudicated appellant’s guilt and sentenced him to confinement for thirty 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 the 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 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of his right to review the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than sixty days have passed and 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 Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Brown.

Do Not Publish — Tex.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