Opinion issued September 5 , 2024

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 2 3
- 00 474
- CR

——————————— WILLIAM MICHAEL PROCTOR , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 2 4 8 th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No . 1 124360

MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found appellant, William Michael Proctor , guilty of the felony offense
of capital murder , 1 and the trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for

1 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 19.03(a), (b)

.2

life

. On appeal , we affirmed the trial court’s judgment. 2 Later, appellant filed a post

- conviction motion for forensic DNA testing. 3 The trial court denied appellant’s motion, and a ppellant timely filed a notice of appeal. 4
A ppellant ’ s appoint ed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along
with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and 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 the 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 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.). Counsel has informed the Court that he provided appellant with a copy of his
Anders brief and his motion to withdraw . Counsel also informed appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a response to counsel’s Anders brief

. Further, c ounsel provided appellant with a copy of the appellate record and a form

2 See Proctor v. State , 319 S.W.3d 175 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. struck ) (published in part).
3 See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 64.01.
4 See id. art. 64.05.3

motion to access the appellate record

. 5 See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant filed a pro se response to his counsel’s Anders brief. We have independently re viewed the entire record , and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing 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

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell , 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that appellant may challenge a holding that there

are no arguable grounds for an 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.

5 This Court also notified appellant that his appointed counsel had filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw and informed appellant that he had a right to examine the appellate record and file a response to h is counsel’s Anders brief. And this Court provided appellant with a form motion to access the appellate record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

– 22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).4 Conclusion
We affirm the order of the trial court and grant appellant ’ s appointed counsel ’ s motion to withdraw. 6 Attorney Nicholas Mensch must immediately send appellant the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

Julie Countiss Justice
Panel consists of Justices Landau, Countiss, and Guerra

. Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

6 A ppellant’s appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of th e appeal and that appellant may, on h is 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).