Corin Deon Robinson appeals his convictions for two aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon offenses. Appellant initially pleaded not guilty before a jury. While the jury deliberated during the guilt/innocence phase of the trial, appellant changed his pleas to guilty and pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph included in each indictment in exchange for the trial court capping the punishment at no more than twenty-five years in prison. At the end of the punishment phase, the trial court found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at twenty years’ imprisonment in each case. 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 *2 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 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) (noting appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel).

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.

/Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE Do Not Publish

T EX . R. A PP . P. 47

160823F.U05