Opinion issued Ju ly 7 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 16
- 00002
- CR

——————————— JOSE A. BRIBIESCA
- RAMIREZ , 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. 1441994

MEMORANDUM OPINION Jose A. Bribiesca

- Ramirez pleaded guilty without an agreed punishment recommendation to the felony offense of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance with an aggregate weight of 440 grams or more

. See T EX
. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN
. § 481.112(a) (West 2010 ). The trial court accepted2

the plea and after a presentence investigation hearing, sentenced appellant to 30 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. See id. § 481.112(f). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. Appellant’ s appointed counsel o n appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with a brief stating that the recor d 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 A nders requirements by pre senting a professional evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal authority

. 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. State , 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Appellant requested and was provided access to a copy of the record and his pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief was due on May 9, 2016. Appellant filed no response and requested no extension of time. We have independently reviewed the entire recor d in this appeal, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record , there are no arguable grounds for review, and the appeal is frivolous

. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at3

1400 (e mphasizing that reviewing court

— and not counsel

— determ ines, after full examination of proceedings, whet her appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State , 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ( same); Mitchell , 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record)

. We note that a n 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.
W e affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw. 1 Attorney Joseph W. Varela must immediately send appellant the required notice and file a copy of th e notice with the Clerk of this Court. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Brown, and Huddle. 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 Ex Parte Wilson , 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)

.