                                       In The

                                Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                           ____________________
                               NO. 09-12-00235-CR
                           ____________________

                        KEVIN WADE LUMAN, Appellant

                                         V.

                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
____________________________________________________________________               _

                   On Appeal from the 258th District Court
                            Polk County, Texas
                           Trial Cause No. 17516
____________________________________________________________________               _

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Kevin Wade Luman pleaded guilty to the

attempted manufacture of a controlled substance. The trial court found Luman guilty,

suspended imposition of sentence, and placed Luman on community supervision for ten

years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Luman’s community supervision.

Luman pleaded “true” to violating three conditions of his community supervision. The

trial court found that Luman violated the conditions of his community supervision,

revoked Luman’s community supervision, and sentenced Luman to seven years in prison.



                                         1
       Luman’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record and concludes Luman’s 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 September 20, 2012, we granted an extension

of time for Luman to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Luman. We have

determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the

clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an

appeal. We therefore 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.


                                               ________________________________
                                                       STEVE McKEITHEN
                                                           Chief Justice

Submitted on December 28, 2012
Opinion Delivered January 23, 2013
Do Not Publish

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




       1
       Luman may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary review.
See Tex. R. App. P. 68.

                                           2
