In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-13-00087-CR ____________________ CURTIS PAUL HAVARD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _________________________________ ______________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 08-02661 ____________________________________________ ____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Curtis Paul Havard pleaded guilty to forgery. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to substantiate Havard’s guilt, deferred further proceedings, placed Havard on community supervision for three years, and later extended community supervision for an additional two years. The State later filed a motion to revoke Havard’s unadjudicated community supervision. Havard pleaded “true” to violating one condition of his community supervision. The trial court found that Havard violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Havard guilty of forgery, revoked Havard’s community supervision, and sentenced Havard to one year in a state jail facility.

Havard’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes Havard’s appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time for Havard to file a pro se brief, but we received no response from Havard. 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. 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STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on September 16, 2013 Opinion Delivered October 30, 2013 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.

Havard may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.