Opinion issued November 29, 2012




                                     In The
                              Court of Appeals
                                    For The
                          First District of Texas

                              NO. 01-11-00402-CR
                                   ____________

                     WILLIAM HENDERSON, Appellant

                                        V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


                    On Appeal from the 208th District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                        Trial Court Cause No. 1277559


                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant, William Henderson, pleaded guilty to the offense of intoxication

assault and pleaded true to one felony enhancement paragraph, without an agreed

recommendation from the State regarding punishment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§ 12.42 (West 2011); § 49.07 (West Supp. 2012). The trial court found appellant
guilty, found the enhancement to be true, and assessed punishment at 20 years’

confinement. The trial court certified that this is not a plea bargain case and that

appellant has 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.

See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant has

not filed a pro se response.




                                          2
      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)

(explaining that frivolity is determined by considering whether there are “arguable

grounds” for review); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist);

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 Bob Wicoff must immediately send the notice required by

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).


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
                                 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.

Do not publish.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




                                           4
