Opinion filed March 27, 2014




                                     In The


        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                 ____________

                               No. 11-13-00144-CR
                                 ____________

                  PAUL JAMES GRUDZIEN, Appellant
                                       V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


                    On Appeal from the 266th District Court
                             Erath County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. CR13543


                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      The jury convicted Paul James Grudzien of possession of marihuana in an
amount of five pounds or less but more than four ounces. Appellant pleaded true
to two enhancement allegations. The jury found both enhancement allegations to
be true, and it assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement for fourteen years
and a fine of $10,000. We dismiss the appeal.
      Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this
appeal. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has
concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided Appellant with a
copy of the brief and advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a
response to counsel’s brief.     Court-appointed counsel has complied with the
requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v.
State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137
(Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—
Eastland 2005, no pet.).
      Appellant has filed a pro se response to counsel’s motion to withdraw and
supporting brief. In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of
appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an
opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or
(2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so
that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at
409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have
independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit
and should be dismissed. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.
      We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that he may
file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal
cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days
after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and
                                          2
judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition
for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises Appellant
that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.
      The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.


                                                           PER CURIAM


March 27, 2014
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
Willson, J., and Bailey, J.




                                          3
