*1 AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed February 28, 2017.

In The No. 05-16-00487-CR No. 05-16-00488-CR V.

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F13-60367-X, F13-60368-X MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Fillmore, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Lang A jury convicted Anthony Earl Lightner of theft of property valued at $100,000 or more but less than $200,000 and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (UUMV). After finding two enhancement paragraphs true, the jury assessed punishment at fifty years’ imprisonment for the theft conviction and ten years’ imprisonment for the UUMV conviction. 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. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, *2 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases).

Appellant filed a pro se response raising several issues After reviewing counsel’s brief, appellant’s pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeals are 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 appeals.

We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

/Douglas S. Lang/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE Do Not Publish

T EX . R. A PP . P. 47

160487F.U05