Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Samuel Ernest Wright, a.k.a. Samuel Earnest Wright, was convicted by a Tarrant County1 jury of family violence assault with a prior conviction,2 and the jury assessed punishment of thirty- five years’ incarceration.

Wright’s appellate attorney filed a brief setting out the procedural history of the case, summarizing the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings, and concluding that the appellate record presents no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no plausible appellate issues to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

Counsel sent a copy of the brief to Wright, provided him with a copy of the record, and advised Wright of his right to review the record and file a pro se response. We advised Wright that his pro se response, if any, was due on or before October 26, 2017. Wright filed neither a pro se response nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment. Id.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.^[3]

Bailey C. Moseley Justice Date Submitted: November 29, 2017 Date Decided: December 8, 2017 Do Not Publish