Opinion issued February 26, 2019




                                     In The

                              Court of Appeals
                                    For The

                         First District of Texas
                            ————————————
                              NO. 01-18-00104-CR
                           ———————————
                     LUKE WAYNE DOWDY, Appellant
                                       V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


                    On Appeal from the 56th District Court
                          Galveston County, Texas
                      Trial Court Case No. 16-CR-2590


                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Luke Wayne Dowdy pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of a

controlled substance in an amount less than one gram and was sentenced to twenty

months in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.115.
      On appeal, Dowdy’s appointed counsel 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.).

      Counsel advised Dowdy of his right to access the record and provided him

with a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised Dowdy of his

right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Dowdy did not request access to

the record and did not file 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, 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,


                                          2
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 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 Winifred Bandy Weber must immediately send Dowdy 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 Justices Lloyd, Kelly, and Hightower.

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
