JUDGMENT

Court of gpeate

jfirsft ©fetrtct of ffizxa*

NO. 01-14-00394-CR

ALFRED RODRIGUEZ, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 9 of Harris County

(Tr. Ct.No. 1931465).

The cause heard today by the Court is an appeal from the judgment signed by the

court below on April 9, 2014. After inspecting the record of the court below, it is the

opinion of this Court that there is no reversible error in the judgment. It is therefore

CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED, and ORDERED that the judgment ofthe court below be

affirmed.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered June 25, 2015.

Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Chief Justice Radack and Justices

Higley and Massengale.
Opinion issued June 25, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals!

For The

$\xxt ©tetrttt of Cexasf

NO. 01-14-00394-CR

ALFRED RODRIGUEZ, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 9

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1931465

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant, Alfred Rodriguez, Jr., guilty ofthe offense of assault

family violence. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1) (West Supp. 2014).

The trial court then found the allegations in an enhancement paragraph true and
sentenced him to 300 days in the county jail. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.

§§ 12.21, 12.43 (West 2011). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw,

along with a briefstating that the record 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 Anders requirements by presenting 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).

We have independently reviewed the entire record 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. 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). We

note that an 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.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel's motion to

withdraw.1 Attorney Mark Kratovil must immediately send appellant the required

notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk ofthis Court. See Tex. R. App.

P. 6.5(c).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists ofChiefJustice Radack and Justices Higley and Massengale.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

i Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result ofthis 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).
• Court of Appeals, First District

*. 301 Fannin Street \

Hbustori, Texas 77002-2066

7 7 00-2..@

7701