Pursuant to a plea bargain, Jason Genee Murphy pled guilty to the state jail felony offense of forgery. The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed Murphy on community supervision for three years. The State filed a "motion to revoke unadjudicated probation," and Murphy pled true to probation violations. Subsequently, the trial court adjudicated Murphy's guilt and sentenced him to two years in a state jail facility.

Murphy's counsel filed an Anders brief stating that "[t]here are no meritorious issues for appeal." Appellate counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Subsequently, Murphy filed a pro se brief raising two issues. First, he argues his counsel was ineffective at the punishment stage because trial counsel did not object to the trial court's "refusal and failure to consider mitigating evidence[.]" The record reveals the trial judge did not refuse to consider mitigating evidence at the punishment stage. Trial counsel pointed out to the trial court that Murphy had passed and was awarded his G.E.D. certificate. Further, Murphy addressed the trial court and explained he had located a preacher that "does drug classes" that Murphy could attend for free.

In issue two, Murphy contends the trial court violated his due process rights under

the United States and Texas constitutions and committed structural error by failing to function as an impartial tribunal for sentencing purposes. See Blue v. State, 41 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). He offers no support, either from the record, statute, or case law for his contention. There is nothing in the record showing any lack of impartiality by the trial judge.

We have determined that the appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the clerk's record and the reporter's record and find no reversible error. Murphy may file a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The trial court's judgment is affirmed. Appointment of new counsel is not required. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

____________________________

DAVID GAULTNEY

Justice

Submitted on January 24, 2007

Opinion Delivered January 31, 2007

Do Not Publish

Before Gaultney, Kreger and Horton, J.J.