In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-12-00287-CR ____________________ CHRISTOPHER GROZE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _______________________________________________________ ______________ On Appeal from the 356th District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause No. 18568 ________________________________________________________ _____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Christopher Groze pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to aggravated robbery. The trial court found the evidence substantiated his guilt, but deferred further proceedings and placed him on community supervision for five years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke and appellant pleaded “true” to various violations of the community supervision order. The trial court found appellant violated these conditions, adjudicated him guilty of aggravated robbery, and assessed punishment at twenty-two years of confinement. Appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record. Counsel concludes there are no arguable points of error. 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). This Court granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se response. We received no response from the appellant. We have reviewed the appellate record and agree with counsel’s conclusion. It is 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). The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

________________________________ DAVID GAULTNEY Justice Submitted on March 5, 2013 Opinion Delivered March 27, 2013 Do Not Publish Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.