In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-13-00055-CR ____________________ HOCKEEM JAMAL JEFFERSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _______________________________________________________ ______________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 12-15402 ________________________________________________________ _____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In this appeal, counsel for the appellant filed a brief stating that there are no arguable points of error that would allow the appellant, Hockeem Jamal Jefferson, to obtain relief from his conviction; after reviewing the record, we conclude that no arguable issues support Jefferson’s appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

In carrying out a plea bargain agreement, Jefferson pled guilty to burglarizing a habitation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(3) (West 2011).

Under the terms of Jefferson’s plea agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of Jefferson’s guilt, placed Jefferson on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a fine of $750.

Subsequently, by motion, the State asked the trial court to revoke its community supervision order and to find Jefferson guilty of burglarizing a habitation. After a hearing, the trial court found that Jefferson violated one of the terms of its deferred adjudication order, found that Jefferson was guilty of burglarizing a habitation, and then sentenced Jefferson to twenty years in prison.

On appeal, Jefferson’s counsel filed a brief, which presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes Jefferson’s appeal is frivolous.

See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time to allow Jefferson to file a pro se brief, but he did not do so. While awaiting Jefferson’s response, the trial court corrected a clerical error in the judgment and removed a fine that was not pronounced when Jefferson was sentenced.

After reviewing the appellate record, and in light of the trial court’s correction of the clerical error in its judgment, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support Jefferson’s appeal. Consequently, we need not order the appointment of new counsel to re-brief Jefferson’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Because no arguable issues support Jefferson’s appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1 AFFIRMED.

_________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on September 16, 2013 Opinion Delivered October 30, 2013 Do Not Publish Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.

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