Opinion issued August 29, 2019




                                      In The

                              Court of Appeals
                                     For The

                          First District of Texas
                            ————————————
                              NO. 01-18-01097-CR
                            ———————————
                       MARTIN DEL ANGEL, Appellant
                                        V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


                    On Appeal from the 351st District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                        Trial Court Case No. 1514070


                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant, Martin del Angel, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of

aggravated sexual assault of a child under the age of 14. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§§ 22.021(a)(1)(B)(i), (a)(2)(B). The trial court then sentenced him to 50 years’

confinement. See id. § 12.32(a). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
      Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along

with a brief stating 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 she 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


                                         2
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 Daucie Schindler must immediately send appellant the

required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

                                   PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Lloyd and Goodman.

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).
                                           3
