Opinion
No. 09-06-494 CR
Submitted on April 6, 2007.
Opinion Delivered April 18, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court, Jefferson County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 96351.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., GAULTNEY and KREGER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant William Charles pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Charles guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Charles on community supervision for seven years, assessed a fine of $500, and ordered Charles to pay restitution in the amount of $3,582. On May 19, 2006, the State filed a motion to revoke Charles's unadjudicated community supervision. Charles pleaded "true" to violating one of the conditions of the community supervision order. The trial court found that Charles violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Charles guilty of burglary of a habitation, and assessed punishment at fifteen years of confinement. Charles'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). On January 11, 2007, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant. We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. 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.