                                      In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              __________________

                              NO. 09-19-00188-CR
                              __________________

                   BRAD ELLIOTT WILLIAMS, Appellant

                                        V.

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 145th District Court
                     Nacogdoches County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. F1823791
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A jury found appellant Brad Elliott Williams guilty of aggravated robbery and

assessed punishment as a prior felony offender at twenty-seven years of

imprisonment and a $200 fine.

      Williams’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.
                                         1
1978). On October 21, 2019, we granted an extension of time for Williams to file a

pro se brief. We received no response from Williams.

      We 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. Cf. 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 January 27, 2020
Opinion Delivered February 5, 2020
Do Not Publish

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




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