Opinion issued January 23, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01
- 13
- 00336
- CR

——————————— HAROLD JOSEPH JOHNSON, JR. , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 26 2nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1292847

MEMORANDUM OPINION
A ppellant, Harold Joseph Johnson, Jr. , pleaded guilty to the offen se of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without an agreed recommendation from the State

. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.02(a)(2 ) (West 2011). T he trial court found sufficient evidence to find appellant guilty, but deferred making any finding2 regarding appellant’s guilt and placed appellant on communit y supervision for a period of 5 years. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 42.12 § 5(a) (West Supp.
2012 ). The State then filed a motion to adjudicate appellant’s guilt

. See id. §§ 5(b), 21(e) . Appellant pleaded true to multiple violations of the conditions of his community supervision

. T he trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and sentenced appellant to 2 years in prison. See id. §§ 5(b), 21(b), 23. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. Appellant’ s app ointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with a brief stating that the recor d 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 b rief meets the Anders requirements by pre senting 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. 1 978) . Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and he 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.). 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 grounds3 for review, and the appeal is frivolous

. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (e mphasizing that reviewing court

— and not counsel

— determines, after full examination of proceedings, whet her appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State , 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arg uable 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 a n 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.
W e affirm the judgment of the trial court and gra nt counsel’s motion to withdraw. * Attorney Mark C. Kratovil must immediately send appellant the required notice and file a copy of th e notice with the Clerk of this Court. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 6.5(c). PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes , Higley , and Massengale

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 Do not publish.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

* 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)

.