Opinion issued July 1 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

NO. 01
- 12
- 0 1041
- CR

____________ ABRAHAM JHAMELL JACKSON , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County , Texas Trial Court Cause No . 1312812

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Abraham Jhamell Jackson , pleaded guilty to the offense of sexual
assault of a child , with no agreed recommendation from the State regarding2

punishment. The trial court judge deferred adjudication and appellant was placed on community supervision for 5 years. Following a hearing on State’s Petitio n for Revocation of Probated Sentence on alleged violations of probation, the trial court revoked appellant’s probation and sentenced him to 15 years with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant’ s appointed 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 807, 812

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)

. Counsel indicates that s 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 Dis t.] 2006, no pet.).
C ounsel has informed us that s he has delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a3

response. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 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 arguable 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, 767 (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 arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in
the Court of Cri minal 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 Patti Sedita must immediately send the notice required by

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

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 Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown

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 Do not publish.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

.