Opinion issued June 18, 2013 .

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 0 1
- 1 2
- 00 457
- CR

——————————— KEISHA MARIE HARMON , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court of Jefferson County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1 0
- 08 7 64

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Keisha Marie Harmon , pleaded guilty to state jail felony offense of securing execut ion of a document by deception with a plea agreement of deferred adjudication , $2500 in restitution and $2690 in administrative fees, and placement on community supervision for three years. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
.2 § 32.46 (West 2010). The State subsequently moved to revoke the community supervision. After a hearing, the trial cou rt found true the State ’ s allegations that
Harmon had violated the conditions of h er community supervision, revoked it, and sentenced her to two years’ confinement. Harmon’s court

- appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw along with a brief st ating his professional opinion that the appeal is without merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Harmon has not submitted a pro se reply brief. We have reviewed the record in its entir ety and, having found no reversible error, we grant counsel ’ s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court. Background
In April 2010 , the State charged Harmon by indictment with securing execution of a document by deception . In May 2010 , s he pleaded guilty to the offense with an agreed punishment recommendatio n of deferred adjudication and payment of $2500 in restitution . The court ordered de ferred adjudication and placed Harmon under commu nity supervision for a term of three years subject to a

va riety of conditions. In March 2012 , the State moved to revoke Harmon’ s community supervision, alleging in eight counts that s he violated its terms. After Harmon was arrested on March 28, 2012, the State added two more counts, namely (1) that Harmon committed the offense of public intoxication and (2) that Harmon3 committed the offense of failure to identify

— fugitive from justice, by failing properly to identify herself to the officer who arrested her for public intoxication.
Harmon pleaded true to these two additional counts at the revocation hearing. The trial court found that Harmon violated these two terms, revoked her community supervision, and assessed her punishment at two years’ confinement. Harmon timely filed h er notice of app eal. The trial court certified Harmon’s right to appeal by stating that this “ is not a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has the right to appeal. ” Discussion The brief submitted by Harmon’s court

- appointed appellate counsel states his professional opinion that no arg uable grounds for reversal exist, and any appeal would, therefore, lack merit. Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. Counsel’ s brief meets the minimum Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and stating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. See
Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel sent a copy of the brief to Harmon , requeste d permission to withdraw from the case, and notified Harmon of h er right to review the record and file a pro se response.
Harmon never filed a separate response. When we receive an Anders brief from a defendant’ s court

- appointed attorney who asserts that n o arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must determine4 that issue independently by conducting our own review of the entire record. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing that reviewing court

— and not counsel

— determines, after full examination of proceedin gs, whether case is “ wholly frivolous ” ); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Any pro se response is also considered. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Thus, our role in this Anders appeal, which consists of reviewing the entire record, is limited to determining whether arguable grounds for appeal exist. See id.
at 827

. If we determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist, we abate the appeal and remand the case to the trial court to allow the c ourt

- appointed attorney to withdraw. See id. Then, the trial court appoints another attorney to present all arguable grounds for appeal. See id. If we determine that arguable grounds for appeal do exist, Harmon is entitled to have new counsel address the m erits of the issues raised. See id. “ Only after the issues have been briefed by new counsel may [we] address the merits of the issues raised. ” Id. On the other hand, if our independent review of the record leads us to conclude that the appeal is wholly fri volous, we may affirm the trial court ’ s judgment by issuing an opinion in which we explain that we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Bledsoe , 178 S.W.3d at 826

– 28. Ardoin may challenge the holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by petitioning5 for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. at 827 & n.6. Following Anders and Bledsoe , we have reviewed the record and counsel’ s Anders brief. We conclude that no reversible error exists. Consequently, we affirm
t he judgment of the trial court and grant counsel ’s motion to withdraw. *
Conclusion We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant appointed counsel ’ s motion to withdraw.

Jane Bland Justice Panel consists of Justice s Jennings, Bland , and Massengale

. Do n ot p ublish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.2( b )

.

* Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal, send appellant a copy of this opinion and judgment, and notify appellant that s he may, on h er own, pursue discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. T EX
. R. A P P . P. 48.4; see also Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Ex parte Wilson , 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Stephens v. State , 35 S.W.3d 770, 771

– 72 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).