Opinion issued February 20, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-12-00592-CR

———————————

TERENCE NATHANIEL TOMPKINS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1337275

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Terence Tompkins, appeals from his conviction for possession of 

a controlled substance less than one gram. See TEX. HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE 

ANN. § 481.115(b) (West 2010). Appellant entered an open plea of guilty to the 
2

judge and was sentenced to 7 months confinement. Appellant 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 professional 

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 she has 

thoroughly 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 she 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 pro 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 whether 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 for 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Brown.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. 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).