Opinion issued December 13, 2012

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-11-00999-CR

———————————

JAMES RICHARD PARGA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court 

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1194981

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, James Richard Parga, pursuant to an agreement with the State, 

pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance, namely 

cocaine, weighing at least 4 grams but less than 200 grams. See TEX. HEALTH &

SAFETY CODE ANN. §§.481.002(38), 481.102, 481.115 (West 2010). In accordance 
2

with appellant’s agreement with the State, the trial court deferred adjudication of 

appellant’s guilt and placed him on community supervision for five years. The 

State subsequently moved for adjudication, alleging that appellant had violated the 

conditions of his community supervision by, inter alia, committing the offense of 

driving while intoxicated. At the hearing on the motion, appellant pleaded true to 

the allegation. The trial court found the allegation true, found appellant guilty of 

the underlying offense, and assessed punishment at confinement for three years. 

Appellant timely filed a notice of 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 therefore 

the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 

(1967). We affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to 

withdraw. 

An attorney has an ethical obligation to refuse to prosecute a frivolous 

appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). If an 

appointed attorney finds a case to be wholly frivolous, his obligation to his client is 

to seek leave to withdraw. Id. Counsel’s obligation to the appellate court is to 

assure it, through an Anders brief, that, after a complete review of the record, the 

request to withdraw is well-founded. Id. If, after an independent review of the 

record, we agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous, we will grant the attorney’s 
3

motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See Garner v. State, 300

S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). If we conclude that arguable grounds 

for appeal exist, we will grant the motion to withdraw, abate the case, and remand 

it to the trial court to appoint new counsel to file a brief on the merits. See Bledsoe 

v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

Here, counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a 

professional evaluation of the record. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 410–11. 

Counsel discusses the evidence adduced, supplies us with references to the record, 

and provides us with citation to legal authorities. See id.; High v. State, 573 

S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has 

thoroughly reviewed the record and that he is unable to advance any grounds of

error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 406–07; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

The brief also reflects that counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant 

and advised him of his right to file a pro se response. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 

at 408. Appellant filed a pro se response, complaining that his sentence is 

unreasonable and that his counsel was ineffective because he failed to present to 

the trial court that appellant had fulfilled other conditions of his community 

supervision.
4

We have independently reviewed the entire record, and we conclude that no 

reversible error exists, that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that

therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 407 n.12 

(explaining that appeal is frivolous when it does not present any argument that 

could “conceivably persuade the court”); Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27 

(emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full 

examination of proceedings, whether the appeal is wholly frivolous). Although we

may issue an opinion explaining why the appeal lacks arguable merit, we are not 

required to do so. See Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 767. An appellant may challenge a 

holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for 

discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 

827 & n.6.

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw1and affirm the trial court’s 

judgment. Attorney J. Sidney Crowley must immediately send the notice required 

by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the 

Clerk of this Court See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). All other pending motions are 

denied.

PER CURIAM

 

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 Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005).
5

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).