Opinion issued December 13 , 2012

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 12
- 00268
- CR

——————————— KEITH LAMONT TAYLOR , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from County Criminal Court at Law No. 12

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1789842

MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted a ppellant, Keith Lamont Taylor , of the misdemeanor offense of assault of a family member and assessed punishment at confinement for 10 days. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 22.01(a)(1) (West 2011 ) ; T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 71.0021 (West Supp. 2012) , § 71.004(3) (West 2008). Appellant’ s2

appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief , stating that the recor d presents no reversible error and that, therefore, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967) . We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. An attorney has an ethical obligation to refuse to prosecute a frivolous appeal

. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). If an appointed attorney finds a case to be wholly frivolous, his obligation to his c lient is
to see k leave to withdraw. Id . Counsel’s duty to the appellate court is to assure it , through an Anders brief, that, after a complete review of the record, the request to withdraw is well

- founded. Id

. Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirement s by pre senting a professional evaluation of the record

. See id . C ounsel discusses t he evidence adduced , supplies us with r ecord references , and provides us with citation to legal authorities. See id.
at 411 ; High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly r eviewed 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; Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 406

– 07 ; Mitchell v. State , 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). The brief also reflects that counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and informed him of his right to examine the record and to file a response. See3

Schulma n , 252 S.W.3d at 408. More than 30 days have passed, and appell ant has not filed a pro se response

. See id. at 409 n.23 (adopting 30

- day period for response). The State waived its opportunity to file an appellee’ s brief. We have independently reviewed the record , and we conclude that no reversible error exists , that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that the appeal is frivolous

. See id. at 407 n.12 (explaining that appeal is frivolous when it does not present argument that could “conceivably persuade the court”); Bledsoe v.
State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (e mphasizing that reviewing court

— and not counsel

— determines, after full examination of proceedings, whet her the appeal is wholly frivolous)

. Although we may issue an

o pinion explaining why the appeal lacks arguable merit, we are not required to do

so. See Garner v. State , 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition f

or discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe , 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6

. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw 1 and affirm the appeal. Attorney Mark C. Kratovil must immediately send the notice required by Texas Rule of

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 Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).4

Appellate Pro cedure 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, Higley, and Sharp

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