Opinion issued January 13, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

NO. 01
- 14
- 00420
- CR

____________ MICHAEL RASHAD CRAIG , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 337 th District Court

Harris County , Texas Trial Court Cause No . 1333045

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Michael Rashad Craig , pled guilty to the offense of burglary of a habitation

. The court deferred adjudication in favor of five years ’ community supervision

. The State later moved for adjudication, and, following a hearing,2

Craig was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant’ s appoint ed 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 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 8 07, 812

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) . Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and that s 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 40 3, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)

. Appellant 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 arguable3

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

— determines, after full examination of proceedings, whet her appeal is wholly frivolous) ; Garner v. State , 300 S.W.3d 763, 7 67 (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 arguabl e 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 and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw. 1 Attorney Jerome Godinich, Jr. 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 Justices Keyes, Higley, and Brown

.

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)

.4

Do not publish.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

.