Appellant Michael Ford was indicted for possession of a controlled substance. Ford pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Ford guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Ford on community supervision for five years, and assessed a fine of $1,000. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Ford's unadjudicated community supervision. Ford pled "true" to two of the alleged violations of the terms of his community supervision. The trial court found that Ford violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Ford guilty of possession of a controlled substance, and assessed punishment at three years of confinement. Ford then filed this appeal.

Ford'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). Ford filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal Appeals directs that we not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (1) "that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error" or (2) "that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues." Id.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. 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. ⁽¹⁾

AFFIRMED.

STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on January 17, 2008

Opinion Delivered February 13, 2008

Do Not Publish

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

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