Jose Luis Medelez, Jr. appeals following the revocation of deferred adjudication community supervision and imposition of a five-year sentence for indecency with a child by exposure in Cause No. 03-06-04345-CR and the revocation of "shock" community supervision and execution of a ten-year sentence for aggravated robbery in Cause No. 04-07-06023-CR. On appeal, counsel for Medelez filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the records and concludes 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 November 8, 2007, we granted an extension of time for the appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response 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. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); cf. 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 February 5, 2008

Opinion Delivered February 13, 2008

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger 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.