Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant Darcy Jo Woods pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance. The trial court assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility, then suspended imposition of sentence, placed Woods on community supervision for four years, and assessed a $500.00 fine. The State filed a motion to revoke community supervision. Woods pled "true" to several allegations that she violated the terms of the community supervision order. The trial court found that Woods violated the terms of the supervision order, revoked Woods's community supervision, and imposed a sentence of two years of confinement in a state jail facility.

Woods'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 September 28, 2006, we granted an extension of time for Woods to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant.

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. 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 January 3, 2007

Opinion Delivered January 17, 2007

Do Not Publish

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

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