Opinion issued December 19, 2013




                                     In The

                              Court of Appeals
                                     For The

                          First District of Texas
                           ————————————
                              NO. 01-13-00139-CR
                           ———————————
                   JERMAINE EARL SEXTON, Appellant
                                        V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



                   On Appeal from the 339th District Court
                           Harris County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. 1370117


                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A jury found appellant, Jermaine Earl Sexton, guilty of the offense of

aggravated robbery. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03 (West 2011). Appellant

pleaded “not true” to the allegations in two enhancement paragraphs. The trial

court found the two enhancements true and sentenced appellant to thirty-five years’
confinement.    See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(d) (West Supp. 2013).

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. See Anders, 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 he 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.).

      Counsel has also informed 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).

      In his pro se response, appellant complains of his counsel’s representation

and that the witnesses were in cahoots with each other.

      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 (same).

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 of the trial court and grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw.1      Attorney Jerome Godinich, Jr. 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).

                                   PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Massengale.

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).
