Opinion issued August 1 3 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 18
- 00452
- CR

——————————— YANCY BOWEN LACROIX , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1534672D

MEMORANDUM OPINION Yancy Bowen Lacroix pleaded guilty without an agreed recommendation as to punishment to the state

- jail

- felony offense of possession of a controlled substance of less than one gram

. The trial court sentenced Lacroix to 12 months in the State2

Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See T EX
. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE § 481.115(a), (b). On appeal, Lacroix ’s appoi nted counsel 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, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets th e 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, 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 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 advised Lacroix of his right to access the record and provided him with a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised Lacroix of his right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Lacroix did not request access to the record and did not file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 14003

(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. 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 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 , 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6. We affirm the judgment of the trial cou rt and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 1 Attorney William R. Biggs must immediately send Lacroix 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 CU RIAM Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Kelly, and Hightower. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. 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 Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson , 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)

.