In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-13-00384-CR ________________ BRYANT K. NAVY A/K/A BRYANT KEITH NAVY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 13-16024 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Bryant K. Navy a/k/a Bryant Keith Navy pleaded guilty to felony theft as a prior felony offender.1 The trial court found Navy guilty and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility, but then suspended imposition of sentence, placed Navy on

Navy had two prior convictions for misdemeanor theft, which increased his offense from a Class A misdemeanor to a state jail felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(4)(D) (West Supp. 2013). community supervision for five years, and assessed a fine of $500. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Navy’s community supervision. Navy pleaded “not true” to the alleged violation of the terms of the community supervision order. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Navy violated the terms of the community supervision order, revoked Navy’s community supervision, and imposed a sentence of two years of confinement in a state jail facility.

Navy’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 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On January 2, 2014, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Navy.

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.2 AFFIRMED.

Navy may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. ________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice

Submitted on April 1, 2014 Opinion Delivered April 9, 2014 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ