1 In The 

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

____________________ NO

. 09

- 1 3

- 00 086

- C R



### ____________________
CHRISTOPHER M. BRIDGES A/K/A CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL BRIDGES , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________ On A ppeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No

. 11

- 10823

________________________________________________________ _____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this appeal, counsel for the appellant, Christopher M. Bridges, 1 filed a
brief stating that there are no arguable points of error that would allow the court to
give Bridges relief from his conviction. After reviewing the record, w e agree that
no arguable issues support Bridges’s appeal. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S.

738, 744 (1967).

1 Appellant is also known by his full name, Christopher Michael Bridges.2 Bridges pled no contest to burglary of a building , a state jail felony that was
enhanced to a second degree felony based on Bridges’s convictions for two

p revious felon ies

. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02 (West 2011) ; see also Act of
May 29, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S.
, ch. 318, § 1, sec. 12.42(a)(2), 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws

2734, 2734

- 735 (amended and replaced 2011) (current version at Tex. Pena l Code
Ann. § 12.425(b) (West Supp. 2013))

. 2 Although Bridges and the State had a plea

agreement under which Bridges agreed to plead guilty for a determinate sentence,
the trial court chose to defer adjudicating Bridges’s guilt and placed him on
community supervision for ten years.
Subsequently, the State filed a motion that asked the trial court to revoke its
decision to place Bridges on community supervision. At the revocation hearing,
Bridges pled “true” to violating three of the terms of the trial court’s community
supervision order. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that
Bridges had violated three of the terms in its community supervision order ; then,

2 See Act of May 25, 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., ch. 834, § 5, sec. 12.425(b), 2011 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 2104, 2105 (West) ( add ing section 12.425, which provides that a defendant shall be punished for a second

- degree felony if it is shown on the trial of a state jail felony that the defe ndant has two prior felony convictions ); see also id. , § 5, sec. 12.42, 2011 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. at 2104

- 105 (amending section 12.42 by deleting the language that was substantially similar to the language added in section 12.425 )

.3 after adjudicating his guilt, the trial court sentenced Bridges to serve nineteen year s
in prison

. On appeal, Bridges’s counsel filed a brief that present s counsel’s
professional evaluation of the record. The brief states that Bridges’s appeal is

frivolous. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1978). We granted an extension of time to allow Bridges to file a pro se brief,
and Bridges filed a response.
After reviewing the appellate record, the Anders brief filed by Bridges’s
counsel, and Bridges’s pro se respons e, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no
arguable issues support Bridges’s appeal. Therefore, we need not order the
appointment of new counsel to re

- brief Bridges’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State , 813
S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm t he trial court’s judgment. 3

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice

Submitted on March 4, 2014 Opinion Delivered July 9, 2014 Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

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