                                     In The

                               Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                             ___________________

                              NO. 09-14-00423-CR
                             ___________________

                   ALFRED LYNN GALLANDER, Appellant

                                        V.

                  THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________

               On Appeal from the 253rd District Court
                       Liberty County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. CR30821
__________________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In this appeal, Alfred Lynn Gallander’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief

contending no arguable grounds can be advanced to support reversing Gallander’s

felony conviction of burglary of a building. Based on our review of the record, we

agree with Gallander’s counsel that no arguable issues exist that would support a

decision to reverse the judgment being appealed. See Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967).



                                        1
      A jury found Gallander guilty of burglary of a building, a state jail felony.

Following the punishment phase of Gallander’s trial, the jury determined that

Gallander should serve a two-year sentence and assessed a $5,000 fine. See Tex.

Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(1), (c)(1) (West 2011). On appeal, Gallander’s counsel

filed a brief presenting counsel’s professional evaluation of the record; in the brief,

Gallander’s counsel concludes that any appeal would be 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 Gallander to file a pro se brief; however, Gallander has

not filed a response.

      After reviewing the appellate record and the Anders brief filed by

Gallander’s counsel, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that any appeal would be

frivolous. Therefore, we need not order the appointment of new counsel to re-brief

Gallander’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.
                                                 ______________________________
                                                        HOLLIS HORTON
                                                             Justice
Submitted on July 31, 2015
Opinion Delivered November 18, 2015
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

      1
         Gallander may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                         2
