A jury found appellant Ronald Carroll guilty of indecency with a child and assessed punishment at five years of confinement. ⁽¹⁾

Carroll'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 July 31, 2008, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from 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). We affirm the trial court's judgment. ⁽²⁾

AFFIRMED.

STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on December 12, 2008

Opinion Delivered December 17, 2008

Do Not Publish

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

1. The trial court's judgment recites that the victim was sixteen years old at the time of the offense; however, the record indicates that the victim was eleven years old at the time of the offense.

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