                                        In The

                               Court of Appeals
                   Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                          ____________________
                             NO. 09-13-00465-CR
                          ____________________

                     JACOB ADAM CHAVEZ, Appellant

                                         V.

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________        ______________

                   On Appeal from the 221st District Court
                        Montgomery County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. 12-09-09566 CR
________________________________________________________        _____________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
      In this appeal, court-appointed appellate counsel, who represents Jacob

Adam Chavez, submitted a brief that contends no arguable grounds can be

advanced in Chavez’s appeal. The judgment from which Chavez appeals reflects

that he was convicted of aggravated robbery. Based on our review of the record,

we agree that no arguable issues exist to support Chavez’s appeal. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).




                                          1
      A jury found Chavez guilty of aggravated robbery, and following the

punishment phase of his trial, found that he should serve a life sentence and pay a

$10,000 fine. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). On appeal,

Chavez’s counsel filed a brief presenting counsel’s professional evaluation of the

record; in the brief, Chavez’s counsel concludes that Chavez’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 Chavez to file a pro se brief.

Chavez filed a response.

      After reviewing the appellate record, the Anders brief filed by Chavez’s

counsel, and Chavez’s pro se response, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that

any appeal would be frivolous. Consequently, we need not order the appointment

of new counsel to re-brief Chavez’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 October 15, 2014
Opinion Delivered December 10, 2014
Do Not Publish
Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.

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