Pursuant to plea bargain agreements, appellant Dwayne Isiah Green pled guilty to burglary of a habitation, burglary of a building, and retaliation. In each case, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Green guilty, but deferred further proceedings. In the burglary of a habitation case, the trial court placed Green on community supervision for ten years and assessed a fine of $1000. In the burglary of a building case, the trial court placed Green on community supervision for five years and assessed a fine of $500. In the retaliation case, the trial court placed Green on community supervision for ten years and assessed a $1000 fine. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Green's unadjudicated community supervision in each case. Green pled "not true" to the sole alleged violation of the conditions of his community supervision in all three cases. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found the alleged violation in each case to be true. In each case, the trial court found that Green violated the conditions of his community supervision and found him guilty. In the burglary of a habitation case, the trial court assessed punishment at twenty years of confinement. In the burglary of a building case, the trial court assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility. In the retaliation case, the trial court assessed punishment at ten years of confinement. The trial court ordered that the sentence in the retaliation case was to run consecutively to the sentence in the burglary of a habitation case, and the sentence in the burglary of a building case was to run consecutively to the sentence in the retaliation case.

Green's appellate counsel 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 June 11, 2009, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief in each case. 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.

_____________________________

STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on October 15, 2009

Opinion Delivered October 28, 2009

Do Not Publish

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

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