Jarmal Deon Speed pleaded guilty to a jury for two aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon offenses. The jury found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at thirty years’ imprisonment in each case. See T P ENAL C ODE NN . § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). On appeal,

appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeals are 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 appellant. We advised appellant of *2 his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases).

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals.

We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

/ Douglas S. Lang/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE Do Not Publish

T R. PP . P. 47

140554F.U05