Opinion issued September 10, 2013




                                      In The
                               Court of Appeals
                                     For The
                          First District of Texas

                              NO. 01-13-00101-CR
                                    ____________

                  CHRISTOPHER LYNN STOKES, Appellant

                                         V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


                    On Appeal from the 149th District Court
                           Brazoria County, Texas
                         Trial Court Cause No. 65147


                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant, Christopher Lynn Stokes, pleaded guilty to the charge of felony

robbery, with an agreed recommendation from the State that adjudication be

deferred and appellant placed on community supervision for 8 years. The trial court

followed the recommendation, deferred adjudication, and placed appellant on
community supervision for 8 years. Subsequently, the State moved to adjudicate.

Appellant pleaded “not true” to the State’s allegations. The trial court found some

of the allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at 20

years’ confinement. The trial court’s certified that appellant had 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 informed us that he has delivered a copy of the brief to appellant

and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a response.




                                             2
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

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)

(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). 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 John Davis must immediately send the notice required by




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
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the

Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

                                  PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Brown, and Huddle.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).




                                           4
