Appellant Maia Njeri Marshall was indicted for felony theft with prior theft convictions. Njeri pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Marshall guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Marshall on community supervision for five years, and assessed a fine of $1000. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Marshall's unadjudicated community supervision. Marshall pled "true" to one of the alleged violations of the terms of her community supervision. The trial court found that Marshall violated the conditions of her community supervision, found Marshall guilty of felony theft, and assessed punishment at eighteen months of confinement in a state jail facility. Marshall then filed this appeal.

Marshall'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). Marshall 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.

__________________________________

CHARLES KREGER

Justice

Submitted on July 29, 2009

Opinion Delivered August 26, 2009

Do not publish

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

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