1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________
NO

. 09

- 1 2

- 00 369

- C R NO. 09

- 12

- 00370

- CR



### ____________________

GILBERT BRYAN ZARAGO ZA , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_______________________________________________________ _____________ _

On A ppeal from the 252 nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No s. 09

- 07309, 09

- 07310

________________________________________________________ ____________ _

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In carrying out plea bargain agreement s in Cause Number s 09

- 07309 and

09

- 0 7310

, 1 Gilbert Bryan Zarago za pled guilty to debit card abuse and aggravated

assault

. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § § 22.02 (aggravated assault)

, 32.31 (debit card

1 Although Zarago za ’s cases are subject to separate appeals , we address both of the cases in one opinion because the cases share an identical reporter’s record and the briefs filed in both cases are substantially similar.2 abuse) (West 2011 ). 2 Under the terms of the plea

- bargain agreement s in each of the

cases , the trial court deferred the adjudication of Zarago za ’s guilt, and plac ed

Zarago za on community supervision for five years

.
Subsequently, the State filed motion s to revoke the trial court’s community

supervision orders. The motion filed in each case allege s that Zarago za violated the

terms of the relevant community supervision order. In both case s , Zarago za pled

“true” to having violat ed the community supervision o rder s

. Based on Zaragoza’s

admi tted violations of the orders, and after finding that the orders were violated

,

the trial court revoked both o rders

. The trial court then found Zarago za guilty on

the charge of debit card abuse in Cause Number 09

- 0 7309 and of aggravated

assault in Cause Number 09

- 0 7310

.

On the conviction for debit card abuse , the trial court sentenced Zarago za to

two years in state jail. On the conviction for aggravated assault , the trial court

sentenced Zarago za to eight years in prison. T he trial court ordered that Zarago za ’s

sentences were to run concurrently.

In each appeal, Zarago za ’s counsel filed a brief present ing counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record s that conclude Zaragoza’s appeal s are

2 A lthough section s 22.02 and 32.31 of the Penal Code w ere amended in 2009, w e cite to the current version of the statute s because the subsequent amendment s do not affect the outcome of the se appeal s

.3 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 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On November 8

,
2012, we granted an extension to allow Zarago za time to file pro se brief s

.

Zarago za has not filed response s

.

After reviewing the appellate records in the two appeals and the briefs , we

agree that no arguable issues support either appeal. Therefore, we find it

unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re

- brief the appeal s

. Cf.

Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial

court’s judgment s

. 3

AFFIRMED.

________________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice

Submitted on February 6

, 2013 Opinion Delivered February 27, 2013
D o Not Publish

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.

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