                                    In The

                             Court of Appeals
                  Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                          _____________________
                            NO. 09-13-00046-CR
                          _____________________

                        PETER BREAUX, Appellant

                                      V.

                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

              On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
                       Jefferson County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 09-07735
__________________________________________________________________

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In this appeal, we conclude that no arguable issues support Peter Breaux’s

appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493

(1967). In carrying out a plea bargain agreement, Peter Breaux pled guilty to

burglary of a habitation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(3) (West 2011).

Under the terms of Breaux’s plea agreement, the trial court deferred the




                                       1
adjudication of Breaux’s guilt, placed Breaux on community supervision for ten

years, and assessed a fine of $1,000.

      Subsequently, by motion, the State asked the trial court to revoke its

community supervision order and to find Breaux guilty of burglarizing a

habitation. After a hearing, the trial court found Breaux guilty, sentenced Breaux to

serve ten years in prison, and imposed a $1,000 fine.

      On appeal, Breaux’s counsel filed a brief, which presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes that Breaux’s appeal is

frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1978). We granted an extension of time to allow Breaux to file a pro se brief,

but he did not do so.

      After reviewing the appellate record, we agree with counsel’s conclusion

that no arguable issues support Breaux’s appeal. Consequently, we need not order

the appointment of new counsel to re-brief Breaux’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State,

813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s

judgment. 1

      AFFIRMED.



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

Submitted on June 21, 2013
Opinion Delivered July 10, 2013
Do Not Publish

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.




                                       3
