                                     In The

                               Court of Appeals
                   Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                             _________________
                              NO. 09-12-00358-CR
                             _________________

                       ALFONSO TORRES, Appellant

                                       V.

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

                   On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
                          Jefferson County, Texas
                         Trial Cause No. 11-11104
________________________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Alfonso Torres pled guilty to the

offense of money laundering. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find

Torres guilty, but deferred finding him guilty. The trial court placed Torres on

community supervision for five years and assessed a fine of $500. The State

subsequently filed a motion to revoke Torres’s unadjudicated community

supervision. Torres pled “true” to three violations of the terms of his community


                                        1
supervision. The trial court found that Torres violated the terms of the community

supervision order, revoked Torres’s community supervision, and imposed a

sentence of 13 years of confinement.

      Torres’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 November 21, 2012, we granted an

extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from

the appellant.

      We have 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.




      1
         Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                         2
                                               ___________________________
                                                    CHARLES KREGER
                                                         Justice

Submitted on March 5, 2013
Opinion Delivered March 27, 2013
Do not publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.




                                       3
