Opinion issued January 14 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

NO. 01
- 13
- 00280
- CR

____________ MICHAEL WAYNE STARNES , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 258 th District Court

Polk County , Texas Trial Court Cause No . 22,566
- CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Michael Wayne Starnes , pleaded guilty to the offense of Theft under $1,500.00, with two prior convictions

. A ppellant plead guilty, and a jury trial was held to determine punishment. The jury assessed punishment at two years confinement in a state jail facility, and a fine of $10,000.00.2

Appellant’ s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief stating that the recor d 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 meets the A nders requirements by pre senting 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. 19 78) . 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; Mitchell
v. State , 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
C ounsel has informed us that he has 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)

. Ap pellant has not filed a response

. We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal , and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record , that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous

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

— and not counsel

—3

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) (explaining that frivolity is determined by considering whether there are “arguable grounds” for review); Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist) ; Mitchell , 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record)

. 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 Appeal s. See Bledsoe , 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n. 6.
W e affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw. 1 Attorney Michael Aduddell 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).
P ER CURI A M Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle

. 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)

.