Opinion issued September 11 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 17 - 00914 - CR

——————————— RONALD EUGENE COCKRE LL , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e On Appeal from the 400th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 15 - DCR - 069981
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Ronal Eugene Cockrell , pleaded guilty without an agreed recommendation from the State to the offense of aggravated robbery . Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced appellant to twelve years’ imprisonment
.2

This sentence is within the applicable range. 1 The trial court certified that this was not a plea

- bargain case, and that appellant had the right of appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant timely filed a notice o f a p p ea l
. Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that, therefore, the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and supplying this Court with references to the record and legal authority. See id. at 744; see also High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). 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; Mitchell v. State , 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Appellant’s counsel has certified that he mailed a copy of the motion to withdraw and the Anders brief to appellant and informed appellant of his right to file a response and to access the record. See In re Schulman , 2 52 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

1 See T EX . P ENAL C ODE § 29.03(b) (offense of aggravated robbery is first

degree felony); 12.32 (first

- degree felony punishable by imprisonment from 5 to 99 years or life).3

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 fri volous. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing that reviewing court

— and not counsel

— determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether 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

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reviewing court is not to address merits of each claim raised in Anders brief or pro se response after determining there are no arguable grounds for review); Mitchell , 193 S.W.3d at 155. An 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. A ccordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw
. 2 See T EX . R. A PP . P. 43.2(a)
. Attorney Calvin D. Parks must immediately send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of

2 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on h is own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).4

this Court. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Caughey
. Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).