Donald Royce Callison, Jr. entered a non-negotiated guilty plea to an indictment for a felony offense, evading arrest by using a vehicle. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 38.04 (b)(1) (Vernon 2003). Pursuant to the trial court's instructions, the jury found Callison guilty, and the trial court assessed punishment at two years' confinement in a state jail facility. ⁽¹⁾ The trial court certified that this is not a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has the right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

Callison'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 May 25, 2006, we granted an extension of time for Callison to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant.

As there was no plea bargain agreement, we have jurisdiction over the appeal. Jack v. State, 871 S.W.2d 741, 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). The trial court's admonishments appear in the record. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13 (Vernon Supp. 2006). Callison admitted that he committed the offense. He has not contested the voluntariness of his guilty plea.

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 trial court's judgment is affirmed. ⁽²⁾
AFFIRMED.

____________________________

HOLLIS HORTON

Justice

Submitted on October 25, 2006

Opinion Delivered March 14, 2007

Do Not Publish

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.

1. The jury found Callison guilty of two other counts, aggravated assault of a public servant and assault of a public servant. Callison appealed only his conviction for aggravated assault of a public servant; that appeal is addressed in a separate opinion by this Court in Cause No. 09-06-065 CR.

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