Opinion issued May 18 , 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 16
- 00871
- CR NO. 01
- 16
- 00872
- CR

——————————— TINA MARIE S E IFERT , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No s . 1473061 & 1491510

MEMORANDUM OPINION This case involves appeals from two convictions, one after revocation of deferred adjudication and the other from a conviction for a new offense that led to the revocation. In trial court cause number 1473061, appeal number 01

- 16

- 00871

-2

CR, Tina Marie Seifert pleaded guilty to the state jail felony offense of theft of property valued at less than $1,500 with two previous convictions of thef t in exchange for a recommendation fr om the State that, among other things, the trial court defer adjudication and place her on community supervision for four years. See
T EX
. P ENAL C ODE § 31.03(e)(4)(D). T he trial court followed the recommendation, deferred adjudication, and placed Seifert on community supervision for four years. Subsequently, the State moved to adjudicat e on the ground that Seifert violated the terms of her community supervision by committing a new offense. Seifert pleaded true to the allegation, and the trial court adjud icated her guilty and sentenced her to 18 months in jail. In trial court cause number 1491510, appeal number 01

- 16

- 00872

- CR, Seifert pleaded guilty to the state jail felony offense of theft of property valued at less than $2 ,500 with two previous convictio ns of thef t without an agreed recommendation as to punishment. 1 See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE § 31.03(e)(4)(D). The trial court accepted Seifert’s plea and sentenced her to 18 months in jail.

1 Seifert’s indictment in case number 1473061 was filed on June 25, 2015, and her indictment in case number 1 491510 was filed on December 11, 2015. Between the first and second indictment , the limit on the value of property stolen under section 31.03(e)(4)(D) was raised from $1,500 to $2,500. See Act of May 31, 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., ch. 1251, § 10, 2015 Tex. Gen. Laws 4209, 4213 (effective September 1, 2015).3

The sentences in the two cases were imposed to run concurrently. The trial court certified that Seifert had the right to appeal in both cases. Seifert timely filed
notice s of appeal from both convictions

. Seifert’s appoint ed counsel on appeal has filed motion s to withdraw, along with brief

s , stating that the record s pr esent no reversible error and the appeal s are without merit and are frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396 , 1400 (1967). Counsel’ s brief

s meet the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record an d supplying us with references to the record s and legal authority. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record s and is unable to adva nce 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 informed us that he delivered copies of the motions to withdr aw and Anders briefs to Seifert and informed her of her right to access the record s and provided her with form motion s for access to the record s . See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 3 22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 4 03, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel has also informed us that he advised Seifert of her4

right to file pro se response s to the Anders brief s and the deadline to file the
responses . Seifert has not filed pro se response s . We have independently reviewed the entire record s in these appeal s , and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record s , there are no arguable grounds for revie w, and the appeal s are frivolous. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court

— and 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. Stat e , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell , 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable groun ds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe , 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6. Accordingly, w e affirm the judgment s of the trial court and gran t counsel’ s motion s to withdraw. 2 Attorney Glenn You ngblood must immediately send Seifert the required notice s and file copies of the notice s with the Clerk of this Court. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

2 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that s he may, on her own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wil son , 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).5 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Huddle

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