Opinion issued April 9 , 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 18
- 00358
- CR

——————————— HERMAN ALFREDO LOPEZ , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 212th District Court Galveston County , T exas Trial Court Ca se No. 16
- CR
- 2498

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Herm an Alfredo Lopez, pleaded not guilty to the f elony offense of possession with intent to deliver more than 400 g rams of a controlled substance

. T EX
. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE § 481.113(a), (e)

. Appellant was convict ed and
sent enced by a jury to 20 years ’ confinement in the T exas Depar tment of Criminal2

Jus tice. The jury also assessed a fi ne of $8,000. Appellant timely fil ed a notice of appeal

. A ppellant’s appointed c ounsel on appeal has fi l ed a motion to wit hdraw, 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 (1967). Counsel’s b r ief meet s the Anders requirements by presenting a professio n al

eva luation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal authority. See id. ; see also High v. Stat e , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex . Crim. App. 1978). Co unsel indi c ates that he has thoroughly rev iewed the record and is unabl e
to a d v ance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders , 386 U.S . at 744 ; Mitchell v. State , 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. Ap p.

— Housto n [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Appellant fil ed a motion to access the appella t e record but did not fi le a pro

se re sponse . 1

1 C ounsel ’ s motion to withd r aw informed this Court about his unsuccessful attempts to contact Appellant : Defendant is no longer in TDCJ

- ID custody since December 19, 2019. Movant was advised by TDCJ

- ID that Defendan t was removed to ICE custody. Movant is unable to locate Defendant in the ICE system. Mov ant has had no return response from Defendant ’ s contact numbers. We note that the Clerk of this Court sent notice that an Anders ’ s brief had been filed and that, if A ppellant wished to file a response, then it was due on February 5, 2020, to A p pellant ’ s last known address. The notice was returned with the notation “ return to sender . . . unable to forward. ”3

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the recor d, there are no argu able grounds for review, and th e appeal is frivolous. Se e Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 (emphas iz ing
t hat r e view i ng co urt

— and not counsel

— determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolou s); Garner v. State , 300 S.W.3d 763, 76 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (review ing court must determine whether arguable grounds for revi ew exi s t); B l edso e v. S tate , 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 ex ist by reviewing entire record). We note that an appella nt may challenge a holding that t he re a r e no a r gua b le grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in th e Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe , 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.
W e affirm the judgment of the tria l court and grant couns el’s motion to
withdraw. 2 Attorn ey Zachary Malo n ey must immediately send A ppellant th e required notice and file a copy of the notice with t he Clerk of this Court. See T EX
. R. A P P
. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

2 Appointed coun sel still ha s a duty to inform A ppellan t of t he result of this appeal and that h e may, on his ow n, pursue di s cretionary review in t he Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson , 956 S.W.2d 25 , 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (en banc).4 PE R CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Ll oyd , Landau, and Countiss.
Do n o t publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b).