MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Longoria, and Hinojosa Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

Appellant Raul Ernesto Silva appeals from his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child, a first-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021(e) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). The trial court found Silva guilty of the offense and sentenced him to forty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Determining that there are no errors that would result in reversal, 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.

I. COMPLIANCE WITH ANDERS

Pursuant to Anders v. California, Silva’s counsel filed a brief stating that, after a thorough review of the record, “there are no errors that would result in the reversal of the judgment, conviction and sentence in this matter.” See 386 U.S. 738, 744–45 (1967). 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) (“In 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, Silva’s counsel has discussed why, under controlling authority, an appeal from the judgment and sentence is without merit and frivolous because the record reflects no reversible error. See 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). 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) notifying Silva that counsel has filed an Anders brief; (3) providing Silva with a copy of the Anders’ brief, which include counsel’s request to withdraw; (4) informing Silva of his right to review the record, to file a pro se response, and to seek discretionary review if the court of appeals concludes that the appeal is frivolous; and (5) providing Silva with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record, lacking only Silva’s signature and including the mailing address for this Court.^[1] 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. The District Clerk has informed this Court that the clerk’s record was delivered to Silva on August 1, 2018 and the reporter’s record on August 2, 2018. Silva’s motion to extend time to file his response was granted until November 30, 2018. An adequate amount of time has passed, and Silva has not filed a pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

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, counsel’s appellate brief which includes his request to withdraw, and the State’s response. 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) (“Due 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. We affirm the judgment.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, counsel has requested to withdraw as counsel. 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 November 2, 2018. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Silva and to advise Silva of his right to pursue a petition for review.^[2] 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).

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 19th day of December, 2018.