                                      In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                              ___________________

                               NO. 09-13-00035-CR
                              ___________________

                       MICHAEL J. GUIDRY, Appellant

                                        V.

                  THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_________________________________________________________________ _

                On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
                       Jefferson County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 12-13308
_________________________________________________________________ _

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Michael J. Guidry pleaded

guilty to the lesser-included offense of robbery after being indicted for aggravated

robbery. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Guidry guilty, but

deferred further proceedings, placed Guidry on community supervision for seven

years, and assessed a fine of $500. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke

Guidry’s unadjudicated community supervision. Guidry pleaded “true” to two

violations of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found

                                         1
that Guidry violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Guidry

guilty of robbery, and assessed punishment at seventeen years of confinement.

      Guidry’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.

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

1978). We granted an extension of time for Guidry to file a pro se brief. We

received no response from Guidry.

      We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s

conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we 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 September 16, 2013
Opinion Delivered September 25, 2013
Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.
      1
        Guidry may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                        2
