Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 4 , 2022
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00486

- C R NO. 14

- 21

- 00487

- C R NO. 14

- 21

- 00488

- CR

C LARENCE WILLIAMS JU NIOR , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal from the 21st District Cour t Washington County, Texas Trial Co urt Cause No s . 19107 , 19117, 19118

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant appeals the trial court ’s assessment of punishment of 50 years ’ incarceration to run concurrently for eac h of the follow ing offenses: (1) assault against a family mem

ber with a previous conviction enhance d to habitual ( No. 14

- 21

- 00486

- CR) ; (2) burglary of a habitation with inten t to comm it other fel ony2

enhance d to habitu al (No. 14

- 21

- 00 487

- CR) ; (3) burglary of a habitation with inten t to comm it other fel ony e nhance d to habitu al (No. 14

- 21

- 00 48 8

- CR) ; (4)
ag gravated assault with a dea dly wea pon enhanced to habitual (No. 14

- 21

- 00 48 8

- CR) ; (5) assault against a family mem ber with a previous conviction enhanced to habitual ( No. 14

- 21

- 0048 8

- CR) ; (6) assault against a family mem ber impeding breath with a previous convictio n enhanced to habitual ( No. 14

- 21

- 00486

- C R) ; a nd (7) the trial co urt ’s assessment of 10 years ’ confinement to run concurre ntly for the offense of evading arrest with a previous conviction enhance d t o a second

- deg ree felony (No. 14

- 21

- 00 487

- CR)

. See Tex. Penal C ode § § 22.01(b)(2)( A ) ; 30.02(d) ; 22.02(a)(2); 22.01( b)(2)(B) ; and 38.04(b)(1)

. Appellant pleaded g uilty to all counts and entered a plea of tr ue to all enha ncement paragraphs. The trial court c er tifie d appel lant ’ s right to appeal as to punishment only. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly fr ivolous and without merit. The brief mee ts the requirement of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), pr esenting a p rofessional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable gro unds to be advanced. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 80 7 (Tex. Cri m. App. 1978). A copy of cou nsel’s bri ef was delivered to appellant. Appella nt was advised of t he right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At appellant’ s request, the record was provided to hi m. On May 26, 2022 , appellant filed a pro se res ponse to counsel’ s brief.
We h ave carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit . Further, we find no reversible error i n the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the j ur isprudence o f the state. We are not to address the merits of each claim3

raised in an Anders br ief or a pro se response when we have determined there are

no ar guable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. C rim. App. 2005). Accordingly , the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
PER CURIAM

Panel consists o f Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Wilson. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b).