Opinion issued May 12, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 14
- 00295
- CR

——————————— S I DNEY CHARLES JONES , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 208th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No . 1408944

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, S i dney Charles Jones , appeals from h is conviction for assault of a family member

. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 2 2.01(a ) , (b)(2) (West 201 4 ). Appellant entered an open plea o f guilty to the court with no recommendation as to2

punishment

. The trial court s entenced appellant to 2 years ’ confinement. The trial

court certified appellant’s right t o appeal. A ppellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant’s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and therefore the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Counsel’s brief me ets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal authority. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812

− 13 (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 has also informed us that he delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file
a response. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant has not filed a pro se response. We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that (1) no reversible error exists in the record, (2) there are no arguable3

grounds for review, and (3) therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court

― not counsel

― determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. S tate , 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 (same). Appellant may challeng e our 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 affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to wit hdraw

. 1 Attorney Ellis McCullough 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 T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 6.5(c). PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd

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