A jury found Charles Elrod guilty of burglary of a habitation and acquitted on a charge of aggravated assault alleged in a two-count indictment. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 30.02 (a)(3),(c)(2) (Vernon 2003). After Elrod pled true to habitual offender enhancement allegations, the jury assessed punishment at twenty-five years of imprisonment in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Elrod'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, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On February 16, 2006, we granted an extension of time for Elrod to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant.

We reviewed the appellate record, and 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). The judgment is affirmed. ⁽¹⁾

AFFIRMED.

____________________________

CHARLES KREGER

Justice

Submitted on May 22, 2006

Opinion Delivered May 31, 2006

Do Not Publish

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

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