Robert Franklin Thomas waived a jury and pleaded guilty to robbery. See T P ENAL

C ODE NN . § 29.02(a) (West 2011). The trial court assessed punishment at eighteen years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Thomas’s attorney 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). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to Thomas. See Kelly *2 v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases).

Thomas filed a pro se response raising several issues After reviewing counsel’s brief, Thomas’s pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/Robert M. Fillmore/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE Do Not Publish

T R. PP . P. 47

140600F.U05

JUDGMENT ROBERT FRANKLIN THOMAS, Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Appellant Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.

F13-61531-W). No. 05-14-00600-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore,

Justices Bridges and Brown participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED . Judgment entered March 27, 2015.