1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________ NO

. 09

- 1 4

- 00 244

- C R NO. 09

- 14

- 00245

- CR NO. 09

- 14

- 00246

- CR



### ____________________
KEVIN WILLI A M PEHM , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________ On A ppeal from the Criminal District Court J efferson County, Texas Trial Cause No s . 13

- 15892, 13

- 15893, 13

- 15894

________________________________________________________ _____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION

In th ese three appeal s , court

- appointed appellate couns el represent ing Kevin

William Pehm submitted briefs that contend no arguable grounds can be advanced
to support arguments that would result in our reversing the trial court’s judgment s

. The judgments at issue in these appeals reflect that Pehm was convicted , in each

case , on charges of theft, and that all of the conviction s are state

- jail felon ies

. See2 Tex. Pen al Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (e)(4) (West Supp. 2014). Based on our review

of the record s , we agree with appellate counsel that no arguable issues exist to

support Pehm’s appeals. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

In the case s on appeal
, Pehm pled guilty to the indictment s , each of which
alleged that he committed theft. In Trial Cause Numbers 15893 and 15894, Pehm’s
charges were state jail felonies based on his prior convictions for theft. See Tex.

Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(4) (D) . In Trial Cause Number 15892, Pehm pled
gui lty to st ealing property that had a value of between $1,500 and $20,000. See id.

§ 31.03 (e)(4)(A)

. In each case, t he trial court found Pehm guilty
, and in each case

the trial court entered a judgment assessing a two

- year sentence and a $ 5 00 fine.
After pronouncing the sentences, the trial court suspended the sentences , and
placed Pehm on probation for five years

. Subsequently, the State filed motion s alleging that Pehm violated the orders

govern ing the terms of his probation. Pehm pled “true” to the allegations in the

State’s motions, and t he trial court revoked it s orders of probation . After setting
aside the orders of probation, the trial court rendered judgments
, each of which
requir es that Pehm serve a sentence of two years in a state jail

.
In his appeal s , Pehm’s appellate counsel filed briefs
, and the briefs present
counsel’s professional evaluation of the record . I n the briefs, Pehm’s counsel3 concludes that Pehm’s appeals are frivolous. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; High v.

State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted extension s to allow

Pehm additional time to file pro se briefs ; h owever, he did not respond

. After reviewing the appellate record s and the Anders briefs filed by Pehm’s
counsel, we agree with counsel’s conclusion s that any appeal would be frivolous.
Consequently, we need no t order the appointment of new counsel to re

- brief
Pehm’s appeals. Cf. Stafford v. State , 813 S.W. 2 d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgments. 1

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice

Submitted on December 23 , 201 4 Opinion Delivered January 21, 2015 D o Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

1 Pehm may challenge our decisions in these cases by filing petitions for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.