Opinion issued January 12, 2017




                                     In The

                              Court of Appeals
                                     For The

                          First District of Texas
                            ————————————
                              NO. 01-16-00146-CR
                           ———————————
                         JOSEPH DURAN, Appellant
                                        V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


                   On Appeal from the 209th District Court
                           Harris County, Texas
                       Trial Court Case No. 1373780


                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant, Joseph Duran, pleaded guilty to the offense of murder without an

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

ANN. § 19.02(b) (West 2011). The trial court found appellant guilty and assessed

punishment at 60 years’ imprisonment. 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.).

      We have independently reviewed the entire record in the 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 (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



                                          2
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. 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). Attorney Kevin P. Keating 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 Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Bland.

Do not publish.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




                                           3
