Opinion issued September 10 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

NO. 01
- 13
- 0 0 101
- CR

____________ CHRISTOPHER LYNN STOKES , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 149 th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No . 65147

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Christopher Lynn Stokes, pleaded guilty to the charge of felony robbery, w ith an agreed recommendation from the State that adjudication be deferred and appellant place d on community supervision for 8 years. The trial court followed the recommendation, deferred adjudication, and placed appellan t on2

community supervisio n for 8 years. Subsequently, the State moved to adjudicate. Appellant pleaded “not true” to the State’s allegations. The trial court found some of the allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at 20 years’ confinement. The trial court’s certified that appellant had the right to appeal

. Appellant timely filed a notice 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 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 copy of the brief to appellant and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a response.3

See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)

. Appellant has not filed a pro se response

. We have independently revie wed 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 reviewing 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) ( reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exi st ); 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)

. An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguabl e 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.
W e affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw. 1 Attorney John Davis must immediately send the notice required by

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

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 Jennings, Brown, and Huddle

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 Do not publish.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

.