Case Information
*1 Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 19, 2015.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-15-00075-CR CASEY HOLMES DYER, Appellant V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 351st District Court
Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1367335 M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant Casey Holmes Dyer appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. 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 *2 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). As of this date, more than 60 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 Justices Jamison, McCally and Wise.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
2