A jury found appellant Bruce Wayne Harp guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a child and assessed punishment at thirty-five years imprisonment with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Institutional Division. Harp timely filed a notice of appeal.

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

The appellate court need not address the merits of issues raised in 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 Harp’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 Harp’s appeal. See id. ; cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. ^[1] *3 AFFIRMED.

_____________________________ CHARLES KREGER

Justice Submitted on September 8, 2015

Opinion Delivered December 9, 2015

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger, and Johnson, JJ.

[1] Harp may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.