In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-13-00385-CR NO. 09-13-00386-CR ________________ JOSEPH CLYDE BODWIN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 05-95256 and 05-95258 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to plea bargain agreements, appellant Joseph Clyde Bodwin pleaded guilty to two charges of aggravated robbery. In each case, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Bodwin guilty, but deferred further proceedings and placed Bodwin on community supervision for ten years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Bodwin’s unadjudicated community supervision in each case. In both cases, Bodwin pleaded “true” to four violations of

the conditions of his community supervision. In each case, the trial court found that Bodwin had violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Bodwin guilty of both charges of aggravated robbery, and assessed punishment at twenty years of confinement. The trial court ordered that the sentences would run concurrently.

Bodwin’s appellate counsel filed briefs that present counsel’s professional evaluation of the records and conclude the appeals are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On October 16, 2013, we granted an extension of time for Bodwin to file pro se briefs. We received no response from Bodwin. We have reviewed the appellate records, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeals. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgments.1 AFFIRMED.

______________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice

Bodwin may challenge our decision in these cases by filing petitions for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.

Submitted on January 27, 2014 Opinion Delivered March 5, 2014 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.