Opinion issued July 9 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 12
- 00401
- CR

——————————— ELMER RAY ROBINSON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 248th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 969154

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Elmer Ray Robinson, was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, was found to have previously been convicted of two felony offenses, and was sentenced to 75 years in prison. We affirmed the trial court’s judgment in an unpublished opinion. See Robinson v. State , No. 01

- 04

- 00717

- CR,2

2008 WL 2340384 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] June 5, 2008, no pet.) (not designated for publication). Appellant then filed a post

- conviction motion for forensic DNA testing. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 64.01(a

- 1) (West Sup p. 2012). The trial court denied the motion. See id. art. 64.03(a) (West Supp. 2012). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. See id. art. 64.05 (West 2006). Appellant’ s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Ander

s 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 Anders 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 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) . Counsel indicates that he has th oroughly 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, 15 5 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). We have indepe ndently 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 , 3863

U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (e m phasizing 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 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)

. 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.
W e affirm the judgment of the trial court an d grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 1 Attorney Kelly Ann Smith 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 Justices Jennings, Brown, 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 d iscretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson , 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)

.