Opinion issued November 29 , 201 2

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

____________ NO. 01
- 10
- 00065
- CR

____________ KIM DARRELL WARNER , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 17 4 th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1189161 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Kim Darrell Warner pleaded guilty to the felony offense of aggravated robbery , without an agreed recomme ndation from the State regarding punishment. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 29.03 (West 2011). The trial court found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at 50 years’ confinement. The trial2

court certified that this is not a plea bargain case and that a ppellant has 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 recor d presents no reversible error and therefore the app eal 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

erro r 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 also notified us that he delivered a copy of the brief to appellant
and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a
response. 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 arguable3

grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous

. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (e mphasizing that reviewing court

— and not
counsel

— determines, after full examination of proceedings, whet her appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State , 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (explaining that frivolity is determined by considering whether there are “arguable grounds” for review); Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Mitchell , 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record)

. An app ellant 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.
W e affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw

. 1 Attorney Danny Easterling must immediately send the notice required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 6.5(c). PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle

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 Do not publish.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

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)