Opinion issued August 6, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 7
- 00 7 40
- CR

——————————— LARRY BRODEN , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1 50 3 451

MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to an agreement with the State, a ppellant, Larry Broden , pleaded guilty to the felony offense of murder. 1 The trial court found appellant guilty,

1 See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 19 .0 2 (b) (1), (2)

.2

assessed his punishment at confinement for twenty

- five years, and certified that appellant had the right to appeal. Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel’s br ief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal authority. 386 U.S. at 744; see also High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicat es that s he has thoroughly reviewed the record and is unable to advance any grounds of 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 informed the Court that s he provided appellant a copy of the brief , motion to withdraw , and “a copy of the entire record,” and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and file a response to counsel’s Anders brief

. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) ; In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). This Court granted appellant’s pro se motion to access the appellate record and extend the time for filing a response , and a copy of the appellate record was sent to appellant. See Kelly , 436 S.W.3d at 3 19

. Appellant has not filed a response to his counsel’s Anders brief.3

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no argu able grounds for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing 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 argua ble 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 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that an appellant may challen ge 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 , 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.
W e affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw. 2 Attorney Mandy Miller must immediately send appellant the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Lloyd , Landau, and Countiss

.

2 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 Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex p arte Wilson , 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)

.4

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