In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-12-00228-CR _________________ MARIO GARCIA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 75th District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. CR29258 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Following a jury trial, appellant, Mario Garcia was convicted of burglary of a habitation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(1) (West 2011). After pleading true to four enhancement paragraphs, Garcia was sentenced by the jury to confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of eighty years. This appeal followed.

Garcia’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 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On August 16, 2012, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Garcia.

We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. 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___________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on November 19, 2012 Opinion Delivered January 16, 2013 Do not publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.

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