Opinion issued September 10, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-13-00101-CR

____________

CHRISTOPHER LYNN STOKES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 149th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 65147

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Christopher Lynn Stokes, pleaded guilty to the charge of felony 

robbery, with an agreed recommendation from the State that adjudication be 

deferred and appellant placed on community supervision for 8 years. The trial court 

followed the recommendation, deferred adjudication, and placed appellant on 
2

community supervision 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 record 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 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, 812–13 (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, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

Counsel 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 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 (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. 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). 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.

We 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Brown, and Huddle.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).