                                      In The

                                Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                              ________________
                               NO. 09-17-00106-CR
                              ________________

                          JASON DUNCAN, Appellant

                                         V.

                  THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 75th District Court
                        Liberty County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. CR26267
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Jason Duncan pleaded guilty

to sexual assault of a child. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find

Duncan guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Duncan on community

supervision for ten years, and assessed a fine of $1000. The State subsequently filed

a motion to revoke Duncan’s unadjudicated community supervision. Duncan

pleaded “not true” to the alleged violations of the conditions of his community

supervision. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that
                                         1
Duncan had violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Duncan

guilty of sexual assault of a child, and assessed punishment at twenty years of

confinement.

      Duncan’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 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.

1978). On August 10, 2017, we granted an extension of time for Duncan to file a pro

se brief. We received no response from Duncan. 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. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

      AFFIRMED.


                                             ______________________________
                                                    STEVE McKEITHEN
                                                        Chief Justice


Submitted on November 29, 2017
Opinion Delivered December 13, 2017
Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

                                         2
