Opinion issued November 29, 2012

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 174th 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 recommendation from the State regarding 

punishment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03 (West 2011). The trial court 

found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at 50 years’ confinement. The trial 
2

court certified that this is not a plea bargain case and that appellant 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 record presents no reversible error and 

therefore 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. 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 

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.).

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 arguable 
3

grounds for review, and that therefore 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)

(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 appellant 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.

We 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. 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)