Opinion
No. 09-09-00481-CR
Submitted on June 28, 2010.
Opinion Delivered July 7, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court, Jefferson County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 07-00561.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., KREGER and HORTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Robert Earl Bailey a/k/a Robert E. Bailey was indicted for aggravated robbery. Bailey entered a plea of guilty pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Bailey guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Bailey on community supervision for seven years, and assessed a fine of $500. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Bailey's unadjudicated community supervision. Bailey pled "true" to five violations of the terms of his community supervision. The trial court found that Bailey violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Bailey guilty of aggravated robbery, and assessed punishment at twenty-five years of confinement. Bailey then filed this appeal. Bailey's appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Bailey filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (1) "that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error"; or (2) "that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues." Id. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment. AFFIRMED.
Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.