Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 16, 2024

In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-22-00514-CR VECENTIE SONTIAGO MORALES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 1 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1730004R MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant appeals his conviction of two counts of the second-degree felony offense of sexual assault, one count of the third-degree felony offense of continuous violence against a family member; and one count of the third-degree felony offense of assault on a family member by impeding breath or circulation.

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.01(b)(2)(B), 22.011(a)(1)(A); 25.22(e).

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 (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, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

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, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). On November 13, 2023, appellant filed a pro se response to counsel’s brief.

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se response 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).

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Wilson.

Do Not Publish — Tex.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