In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-13-00208-CR _________________ JOSE MIGUEL PONCE-GARCIA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 253rd District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. CR29984 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Jose Miguel Ponce-Garcia pleaded guilty to aggravated assault on a family member with a deadly weapon, a first-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(b)(1) (West 2011). A jury sentenced Ponce-Garcia to fifty years’ imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The trial court sentenced Ponce-Garcia in accordance with the jury’s verdict. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Ponce-Garcia’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel’s brief presents his professional evaluation of the record and concludes there are no arguable grounds to be advanced in this appeal. Counsel provided Ponce-Garcia with a copy of this brief. We granted an extension of time for Ponce-Garcia to file a pro se brief. Ponce-Garcia filed a pro se brief raising a number of issues on appeal.

The appellate court need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005). In these circumstances, we “may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that [the appellate court] has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error. Or, [we] may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id. (citations omitted).

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

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

AFFIRMED.

______________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on March 19, 2014 Opinion Delivered April 9, 2014 Do not publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger, and Johnson, JJ.