Appellant Mercedes M. Biggurs appeals her convictions, following the adjudication of her guilt, for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, theft of property valued at $1,500 or more but less than $20,000, and two injury to a child offenses. The trial court assessed punishment at two years’ confinement in state jail for the theft conviction, ten years’ imprisonment for each injury to a child conviction, and fifteen years’ imprisonment for the aggravated robbery 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 *2 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders ). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of her right to file a pro se response, but she 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.

/David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE Do Not Publish

T EX . R. A PP . P. 47

160560F.U05