Opinion filed January 5, 2018




                                      In The


        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                   __________

                                No. 11-17-00176-CR
                                    __________

   DANIEL SCOTT BRADFORD A/K/A DANIEL BRADFORD,
                     Appellant
                                       V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


                     On Appeal from the 266th District Court
                              Erath County, Texas
                        Trial Court Cause No. CR14801


                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
      The jury convicted Daniel Scott Bradford a/k/a Daniel Bradford of felony
driving while intoxicated and assessed his punishment at confinement for eighteen
years and a fine of $2,000. We dismiss the appeal.
      Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The
motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously
examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous.
Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and a copy of the motion to
withdraw. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file
a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel provided Appellant with copies of the clerk’s
record and reporter’s record.     Court-appointed counsel has complied with the
requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436
S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); 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. [Panel Op.] 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 Anders brief. Appellant
asserts in his response that the arresting officer made false statements and that the
blood specimen was improperly stored. In addressing an Anders brief and a 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. See 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 judgment, along
                                          2
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


January 5, 2018
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Willson, J.,
Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1




        1
          Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland,
sitting by assignment.

                                                      3
