Opinion issued February 20, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 12
- 00 592
- CR

——————————— TERENCE NATHANIEL TOMPKINS , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 232 nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1337275

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Terence Tompkins , appeals from his conviction for possession of a controlled substance less than one gram

. See T EX
. H EALTH AND S AFETY C ODE A NN
. § 481.115(b) (West 201 0 ). Appellant entered an open plea o f guilty to the2

judge and was s entenced to 7 months confinement. A ppellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant’s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and therefore the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professio nal evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal authority. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812

− 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that s he has thoroug hly reviewed the record and is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State , 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Counsel has also informed us that s he delivered a copy of the brief to appellant ’s last known address and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a response. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant has not filed a pr o se response. We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that (1) no reversible error exists in the record, (2) there are no arguable grounds for review, and (3) therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders , 386 U. S.3

at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court

― not counsel

― determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State , 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine w hether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

− 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell , 193 S.W.3d at 155 (same). Appellant may challenge our holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition f or discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe , 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6. We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw

. 1 Attorney Patti Sedita must immediately send the notice required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 6.5(c). PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justice s Keyes, Bland, and Brown

. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b).

1 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson , 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).