NUMBER 13-05-417-CR

                         COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

JOHN ZIMMERLE,                                                                           Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                 Appellee.

On appeal from the 148th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

                     Before Justices Hinojosa, Rodriguez, and Garza

                            Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza

Appellant, John Zimmerle, appeals his conviction of evading arrest or detention.  See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 38.04 (Vernon Supp. 2005).  Appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense.  A jury found appellant guilty of the offense, and the court assessed punishment at 2 years= imprisonment.  The sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on community supervision for 5 years.  Appellant now appeals the judgment of the trial court.  We affirm.

I.  Anders Brief

Appellant's counsel has filed an Anders brief with this Court in which he states that he has diligently reviewed the record and concludes that appellant has no non‑frivolous grounds for appeal.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).  Although counsel's brief does not advance any arguable grounds of error, it does present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal.  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. 1978), counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no errors in the trial court's judgment.  Counsel certifies that he has served a copy of his brief on appellant and informed appellant of his right to file a pro se brief.  We conclude counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders.  See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High, 573 S.W.2d at 812.  More than thirty days have passed and no pro se brief has been filed.

II.  Independent Review

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the 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 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).  We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.  See id.; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.

III.  Motion to Withdraw

In accordance with Anders, appellant's attorney has asked permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant.  See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.  We grant his motion to withdraw.  We further order counsel to notify appellant of the disposition of this appeal and the availability of discretionary review.  See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (per curiam).

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA,

Justice

Do not publish.                                             

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 22nd day of June, 2006.