Pursuant to plea bargain agreements, appellant Giang Long Nguyen pled guilty to two charges of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and one charge of felony theft by possession. In each case, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Nguyen guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Nguyen on community supervision for five years, assessed a fine of $500, and ordered that the periods of community supervision were to run concurrently. In all three cases, the State subsequently filed motions to revoke Nguyen's unadjudicated community supervision. Nguyen pled "true" to one violation of the conditions of his community supervision in each case. In all three cases, the trial court found that Nguyen violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Nguyen guilty of two charges of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and one charge of felony theft by possession, and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility. The trial court ordered that Nguyen's sentence in the second unauthorized use of a motor vehicle case was to run consecutively with the first unauthorized use of a motor vehicle case, but the felony theft case was to run concurrently with the other two cases.

Nguyen's appellate counsel filed briefs that present counsel's professional evaluation of the records and conclude the appeals are 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 March 6, 2008, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file pro se briefs. We received no responses from appellant. We reviewed the appellate records, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeals. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgments. ⁽¹⁾

AFFIRMED.

_________________________________

HOLLIS HORTON

Justice

Submitted on June 26, 2008

Opinion Delivered July 16, 2008

Do Not Publish

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

1. Appellant may challenge our decision in these cases by filing petitions for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.