Opinion issued February 11, 202 0

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 19
- 00613
- CR NO. 01
- 19
- 00 61 4
- CR

——————————— QUENTIN DE VON FLANAGAN , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 182nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No s . 1538625 , 1609087

MEMORANDU M OPINION
A ppellan t, Qwentin De v on Flanagan , pleaded guilty without an agreed recommendation as to punishment for the felony offense s of aggra v ated robbery with a deadly wea pon an d aggrav ated robbery

– over 65 or disabled

. T EX
. P ENAL C ODE § 29

. 03 (a), (b ). Appellant was sent enced by the trial court t o 1 3 yea rs ’2

confinement in the Texas D epar tment of Criminal Jus tice for each convicti on, to

run c oncurrently

. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal for both judgments

. A ppellant’s appointed c o u nsel on appeal has fi led a motion to wit hdraw, along with a brief stating that the record present s no reversible erro r and the appeal s are without merit and are frivolous. See Anders v. Califor nia , 386 U.S.
738 (1967). Counsel’s b r ief meet s the Anders requ i rements by presenting a profession al eva luation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and lega l authorit y. See id. ; see also High v. Stat e , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex

. C rim. App. 1978). Co unsel indi c ates that he has thoroughly rev i e wed the record
and is unable to a dv ance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders , 386 U.S . at 744 ; Mitc hell v. S tate , 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. Ap p.

— Housto n [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Appellant did not fi le a pro se response. We have independently reviewed the entire record in th e s e appeal s , and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the recor d, there are no argu able grounds for review, and the appeal s are frivolous. Se e Anders , 386 U

. S. at 7 44 (emphas iz ing t hat review i ng co urt

— and not counsel

— determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal i s wholly frivo lou s); Garner v. State , 300 S.W.3d 763, 76 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determin e whether arguabl e ground s for revi ew exi s t); Bledso e v. S tate , 178 S.W.3d 824,
826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell , 193 S.W. 3d at 155 (reviewing3

co urt determines whether arguable grounds ex ist by reviewing entire record). We note that an appel la nt may challeng e a hold ing that t he re a r e no argua b le grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in th e Texas Co urt of
Cr iminal Appeals

. See Bledsoe , 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.
W e affirm the judgment s of the trial court and grant co uns el’s motion to

w ithdra w. 1 Attorn ey Danny K. Easterling must immediately send appellant th e required notice and file a copy of the notice with t he Cle rk of t his Court. See T EX
. R. A P P
. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
PE R CURIAM Panel co n sists of Justic es Llo yd, Kelly, and Hightower

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

1 Appointed coun sel still has a duty to inform appella n t o f the result of this appeal and that h e may, on his ow n, pursue di s cretionary review in t he Texas Court o f Criminal Appeal s . See Ex Parte Wilson , 956 S.W.2d 2 5, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)

.