Opinion issued December 13 , 2012

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 12 - 00197 - CR

——————————— ANDREW LONGORIA , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1303224
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Andrew Longoria pleaded guilty, pursuant to an agreed recommendation from the State regarding punishment, to the second

- degree

- felony offense of a ssault of a family member, “ Second Offender and Impeding Breathing.” See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.01(b

– 1 ) (West 2011). In accordance2

with appellant’s agreement with the State , the trial co urt deferred adjudication of
appe llant’s guilt and placed him on community supervision for five years and assessed a $500 fine

. The State subsequently moved for adjudication, alleging that appellant had violated the conditions of his community supervision by committin g a new offense ; failing to maintain suitable employment during the months of July and August 2011; failing to establish and pay child support; failing to perform community service as ordered; failing to pay certain fees, fines, and costs; and making false statements to a Harris County employee

. A ppellant pleaded “not
t rue ” to the allegation s . The trial court found the allegations true, found appellant guilty of the underlying offense, and assessed pun ishment of confinement for fifteen years and a $500 fine . Appellant t im ely filed a notice of appeal. Appellant’ s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief stating that the recor d presents no reversible error and that, therefore , the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967) . We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. An attorney has an ethical obligation to refuse to prosecute a frivolous appeal

. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). If an appointed attorney finds a case to be wholly frivolous, her obligation to her client is to see k leave to withdraw. Id . Counsel’s ob ligation to the appellate court is to3

assure it , through an Anders brief, that, after a complete review of th e record, the request to withdraw is well

- founded. Id

. Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by pre senting a professional evaluation of the record

. See id . C ounsel discusses t he evidence adduced , supplies us with references to the record, and prov ides us with citation to legal authorities. See id. at 411 ; High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that she has thoroughly r eviewed the record and is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 406

– 07; Mitchell v. State , 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). The brief also reflects that counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and informed him of his right to examine the record and to file a response. See Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408. More than 30 days have passed, and appell ant has not filed a pro se re s ponse . See id. at 409 n.23 (adopting 30

- day period for response). The State waived its opportunity to file an appellee’ s brief. We have in dependently reviewed the record , and we conclude that no reversible error exists , that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that the appeal is frivolous

. See id. at 407 n.12 (explaining that appeal is frivolo us when it does not present argument that could “conceivably persuade the court”); Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (e mphasizing that4

reviewing court

— and not counsel

— determines, after full examination of proceedings, whet her the appeal is wholly frivolous)

. Although we may issue an opinion explaining why the appeal lacks arguable merit, we are not required to do

so. See Garner v. State , 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)

. 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 Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe , 178 S. W.3d at 827 & n.6

. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw 1 and affirm the trial court’s judgment. Attorney Melissa Martin 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). We dismiss any other pending

m otions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justic es Jennings, Higley, and Sharp. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b).

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 Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).