1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-13-00086-CR

____________________

CHRISTOPHER M. BRIDGES

A/K/A CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL BRIDGES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal 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, we 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 

previous felonies. 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. Penal 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) (adding 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 defendant 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 years

in prison. 

On appeal, Bridges’s counsel filed a brief that presents 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 response, 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 the 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.