Opinion issued May 14 , 2024

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 23
- 00737
- CR NO. 01
- 23
- 00738
- CR

——————————— DEMETRIA K. PRYOR , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 297th District Court Tarrant County, Texas 1 Trial Court Ca se No s . 1505229D , 1505 2 31 D

1 Pursuant to its docket equalization authority, t he Texas Supreme Court transferred this appeal from the Court of Appeals f or the Second District of Texas. See Misc. Docket No. 22

– 9050 (Tex. June 30, 2022); T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE § 73.001 (authorizing transfer of cases between courts of appeals) ; see also T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 41.3.2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Demetria K. Pryor pleaded guilty to the offenses of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and racing on a highway causing serious bodily injury. 2 The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed her under community supervision for
seven years. The State then filed a motion to revoke deferred adjudication. At the hearing on the State’s motion to revoke deferred adju di cation , Pryor pleaded “true” to all the allegations in the State’s motion. The trial court found the allegations “true,” adjudicated Pryor’s guilt, and assessed punishment at 12 years’
confinement for each offense with the sentences to run concurrently . This a ppeal followed. On appeal, Pryor’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error, that the appeal is without merit, and is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (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. Id. at 744; see also High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and is unable to advance any grounds of

2 See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE § 22.02(a)(2); T EX
. T RANSP

. C ODE § 545.420(a), (b), (h).3

error that warrant reversal. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Mitchell v. State , 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Counsel has advised Pryor o f h er right to access the record and provided h er with a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised Pryor of h er right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Although Pryor filed a motion for access to the record, which was granted, she did not file a pro se response to the Anders brief. We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal. After doing so, we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there ar e no arguable grounds for review, and that the appeal is frivolous. 3 See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing that reviewing court

— and not counsel

— determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous). 4 Accordingly, we

a ffirm the trial court’s judgment s and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Attorney

3 We note that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W .3d 824, 827 & n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

4 See also Garner v. State , 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe , 178 S.W.3d at 826

– 27 (same); Mitchell v. State , 193 S.W. 3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record).4

Mi chael Berger must immediately send Pryor the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. 5 See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 6.5(c). PER CURIAM
Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b)

.

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