Opinion i ssued October 25 , 2012

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

NO. 01
- 12
- 0 0 425
- CR NO. 01
- 12
- 00426
- CR

____________ CLARENCE WILLIAMS JONES , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 248th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No . 1294145 & 1294146

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Clarence Williams Jones , pleaded guilty to two offense s of aggravated robbery , without an agreed recommendation from the State regarding punishment. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 29.03 (West 2011). The trial court2

found appellant guilty of both offenses and assessed punishment at 15 years’ confinement. The trial court certified that these are not plea bargain case s and that appellant has the right to appeal. Appellant timely filed notice s of appeal. 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 s are without merit and are 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 (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, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell
v. State , 193 S.W.3d 153, 154 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1s t Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Here, counsel’s brief reflects that he delivered a copy of the brief to appellant
and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record s and to file response s . See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)

. Appellant has not filed a pro se response.3

We have independently reviewed the entire record s in these appeals , and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record s , that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal s are frivolous

. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 ; 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) (e mphasizing that reviewing court

— and not counsel

— determines, after full examination of proceedings, whet her the appeal is wholly frivolous); 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 Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe , 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n. 6. In each appeal, w e affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s
motion to w ithdraw. 1 Attorney Douglas M. Durham 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).
P ER CURI A M Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Brown

. 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 , 178 S.W.3d at 826

– 27

.