                                     In The

                               Court of Appeals
                   Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                              _________________

                              NO. 09-13-00457-CR
                              _________________

                      DAVID EARL SEGURA, Appellant

                                       V.

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________

                   On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
                          Jefferson County, Texas
                         Trial Cause No. 12-14198
________________________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant David Earl Segura entered a

plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §

29.03(a)(3)(A) (West 2011). The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find

Segura guilty, but deferred finding him guilty. The trial court placed Segura on

community supervision for ten years and assessed a fine of $1,000. The State

subsequently filed a motion to revoke Segura’s community supervision. Segura

pled “true” to violating a condition of his community supervision. After a hearing

on the State’s motion to revoke, the trial court found that Segura violated a

condition of his community supervision order, found Segura guilty of aggravated
                                        1
robbery, revoked Segura’s unadjudicated community supervision, and imposed a

sentence of thirty-five years of confinement.

      Segura’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

Counsel’s brief presents his professional evaluation of the record and concludes

there are no arguable grounds to be advanced in this appeal. Counsel provided

Segura with a copy of this brief. We granted an extension of time for appellant to

file a pro se brief. We received no response from Segura.

      We have independently reviewed the clerk’s record and the reporter’s

record, and we agree with Segura’s appellate counsel that no arguable issues

support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new

counsel to re-brief Segura’s appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,

511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

      AFFIRMED.

                                                ______________________________
                                                       CHARLES KREGER
                                                             Justice

Submitted on April 1, 2014
Opinion Delivered April 9, 2014
Do not publish

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


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