In this appeal, Alfred Lynn Gallander’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief contending no arguable grounds can be advanced to support reversing Gallander’s felony conviction of burglary of a building. Based on our review of the record, we agree with Gallander’s counsel that no arguable issues exist that would support a decision to reverse the judgment being appealed. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

1

A jury found Gallander guilty of burglary of a building, a state jail felony. Following the punishment phase of Gallander’s trial, the jury determined that Gallander should serve a two-year sentence and assessed a $5,000 fine. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(1), (c)(1) (West 2011). On appeal, Gallander’s counsel filed a brief presenting counsel’s professional evaluation of the record; in the brief, Gallander’s counsel concludes that any appeal would be 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 Gallander to file a pro se brief; however, Gallander has not filed a response.

After reviewing the appellate record and the Anders brief filed by Gallander’s counsel, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that any appeal would be frivolous. Therefore, we need not order the appointment of new counsel to re-brief Gallander’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. ^[1]

AFFIRMED.

______________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on July 31, 2015

Opinion Delivered November 18, 2015

Do Not Publish

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

[1] Gallander may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2