Appellant Darrell Wayne Woods Jr. appeals from his conviction for the offense of harassment of a public servant. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.11 (West 2011). Tried EX OVT ODE NN as a repeat offender, a jury found Woods guilty, sentenced him to six years in prison, and assessed a $5,000.00 fine. Woods appeals from this judgment.

Determining that there are no meritorious claims for appeal, counsel filed an Anders brief in which he reviewed the merits, or lack thereof, of the appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, Woods’s counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court stating that he has diligently reviewed the record in this case and that, in his opinion, there is no reversible error. See 386 U.S. at 744-45. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation showing why there are no non-frivolous grounds for advancing an appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W .3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (AIn Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance >arguable= points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.@) (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W .3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W .2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Woods’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under contro lling authority, an appeal from the judgment and sentence is without merit and frivolous because the record reflects no reversible error and, in his opinion, this is a frivolous appeal. Counsel specifically noted, from his review of the following, that he found no issues presented for review: (1) voir dire; (2) trial objections; (3) proof of the elements (4) the charges; (5) punishment; and (6) preservation of the right to appeal. Counsel has demonstrated that he has complied with the requirements of Anders by (1) examining the record and finding no arguable grounds to advance on appeal, (2) serving a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw on Woods, (3) providing Woods with a copy of the reporter’s record and a copy of the clerk’s record, and (4) informing Woods of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response.^[2] See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W .2d 503, 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate time has passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W .3d at 409.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of all proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (ADue to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.@); Stafford, 813 S.W .2d at 509. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. A@

In accordance with Anders, counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W .3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W .2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1995, no pet.) ("If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.") (citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw that was carried with the case on May 11, 2012. W ithin five days of the date of this Court=s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to appellant and to advise appellant of his right to pursue a petition for review.^[3] See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W .3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W .3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).Delivered and filed the19th day of July, 2012.

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZJustice

EX PP EX PP EX PP

 
—————————————————————————————-
 

¹ – This case is before this Court on transfer from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont pursuantto an order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See T.G’CA. § 73.001 (West 2005).