Opinion
Nos. 09-09-00095-CR, 09-09-00096-CR, 09-09-00097-CR
Submitted on April 26, 2010.
Opinion Delivered May 5, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Appeal from the 221st District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 08-05-04528-CR, 08-05-04733-CR, and 08-05-04734-CR.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., GAULTNEY and KREGER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Dorothy Clark Canfield entered non-negotiated guilty pleas to an indictment for theft of property or services of the value of at least $1,500 but less than $20,000. See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(A) (Vernon Supp. 2009); TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 31.04(a), (e)(4) (Vernon Supp. 2009). In each case, the trial court convicted Canfield and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility. The trial court ordered that the sentences be served concurrently. On appeal, Canfield's counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the records and concludes the appeals are 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 December 17, 2009, we granted an extension of time for the appellant to file a pro se brief. The appellant filed a pro se response. We reviewed the appellate records and the pro se response, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeals. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgments.2 AFFIRMED.