Opinion issued August 2 2 , 201 9

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 8
- 00 033
- CR NO. 01
- 18
- 00034
- CR

——————————— SCOTT RICHARD PENDERGRAFT , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from 26 2nd District Court H ar r is County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 1512987 & 1 512988

MEMORANDUM OPINION A ppellant, Scott Richard Pendergraft , pleaded no contest t o the second

- degree felony offense of fraudulent use or possession of identifying information in the underlying trial court cause number 1512987

. 1 Appellant also pleaded no contest

1 See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § § 32

. 51 ( a ) (1)(A), (E), (b)(1) , (c)(3) (West 201 1 ).2

for the s tate

-

jail

- fe lony offense of securing execution of a document by deception in the underlying trial court cause number 1512988

. 2 Both of these no - contest pleas were entered without agreed punishment recommendation s from the State, pending a presentence investigation (“PSI”) report and hearing. At the PSI hearing, t h e trial court found appellant guilty as charged and
assessed his punishment at fi v e years ’ confinement for the first charge and one year’s confinement in state jail for the second charge , with both sentences to be served

concurren t ly

. Th e s e sentence s are within the app licable sentencing range s . 3 The trial court certified that th ese w ere not plea

- bargain ed case s , and that appellant had the right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2) (A)

. A ppellant timely filed a notice of appeal and the same, new counsel was appointed in both cases

. Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw , along with an Anders brief in both cases, stating that the record presents no reversible error and that, therefore , the se appeals are without merit and are 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 th is C ourt with references to the record and legal authority

. See id. at 744 , 87 S. Ct.

2 See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § § 32 .4 6 (a) (1), (b) ( 4 ) (West 2011 ).

3 See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § § 12.3 3 (a) , 12. 35 ( a ) (West 201 1 ).3

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 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.). Appellant’s c ounsel has informed us that he has delivered a copy of the motion to withdraw and Anders brief to appellant and informed him of his right to file a pro

se response after getting access to the record s . See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. 2008). Furthermore, counsel has certified that he has sent the form motion for pro se access to the record s to appellant for his response

. See Kelly
v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appel lant has timely filed

a n amended pro se response to his counsel’s Anders brief

. We have independently reviewed the entire record s in th e s e appeal s , and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that therefore the appeals are fr ivolous. 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 the appeal is wholly frivolous) ; Garner v. State , 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grou nds for review exist ); Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 2 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reviewing court is not to address4

merits of each claim raised in Anders brief or pro se response after determining there are no arguable grounds for review) ; Mitchell , 193 S.W.3d at 155. 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. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment s of the trial court and grant counsel’s
motion s to withdraw in both cases

. 4 See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 43.2( a )

. Attorney Terrence Gaiser must immediately send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court. See T E X
. R. A PP
. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other motions
as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Kelly , and Goodman

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

4 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of th e s e appeal s 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).