Opinion issued July 12 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 15 - 00 3 57 - CR

——————————— KENNETH L. BROWN , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 13 89982
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Kenneth L. Brown , was found guilty by a jury of the felony offense of aggravated robbery
. See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 29 .0 3 (a) (2) (West 2011). Appellant pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs in the indictment resulting in an increased punishment range of twenty

- five to ninety

- nine years ’ imprisonment2

upon conviction. See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 12
. 42 ( d ) (West Supp. 2015)
. The jury assessed punishment at thirty

- eight years’ imprisonment . Ap pella nt timely filed a notice of appeal. Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and 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 presenting 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 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. S tate , 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for review, and the appea l is frivolous. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court

— and not counsel

— determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State , 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2 009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

–3

27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell , 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing ent ire record). We note that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe , 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6. We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 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 Ap peals. See Ex Parte Wilson , 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Attorney Bob Wicoff must immediately send appellant the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 6.5(c). PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Higley, Bland, and Massengale. Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).