Opinion issued October 21, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

NO. 01
- 14
- 00181
- CR

____________ DARIUS XAVIER WOOD , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 230 th District Court

Harris County , Texas Trial Court Cause No . 1303774

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Darius Xavier Wood , pleaded guilty th e offense of aggravated robbery

. The trial court judge deferred adjudication and appellant was placed on community supervision for seven year s . Following a hearing on State’s First2

Amended Petition for Revocation of Probated Sentence on alleged violations of probatio n, the trial court revoked appellant’s probation and sentenced him to 10
years ’ confinement

. 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
theref ore 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 he has thoroughly reviewed the record and t hat 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 Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
C ounsel has informed us that he has delivered a c opy of the brief to appellant
and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a response. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)

. Appellant has not filed a response

.3

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 review ing 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 Kurt B. Wentz 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).

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 P ER CURI A M Panel consists of Ju stices Massengale, Brown, and Huddle

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 Do not publish.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

.