Robert Chavez v. State

In The



Court of Appeals



Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



______________________

NO. 09-07-117 CR

______________________

ROBERT CHAVEZ, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 89694




MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant Robert Chavez pled guilty to burglary of a building. On January 3, 2006, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Chavez guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Chavez on community supervision for three years, assessed a fine of $750, and ordered Chavez to pay restitution of $170.55. On May 11, 2006, the State filed a motion to revoke Chavez's unadjudicated community supervision. Chavez pled "true" to three violations of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Chavez violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Chavez guilty of burglary of a building, and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility.

Chavez'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 July 12, 2007, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from 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. (1)

AFFIRMED.



_________________________________

DAVID GAULTNEY

Justice

Submitted on November 5, 2007

Opinion Delivered November 28, 2007

Do not publish



Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.

1. Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.