Opinion filed Ap ril 16 , 2 009



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

____________ 

### No. 1 1- 08 -0 02 83 -CR

____ ____ __ NA THA N H UTT A JR ., Ap pellant

V. STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee

On App eal from the 104th Distric t Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 16489B

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N This is an appea l from a judg ment revokingcommunity supervision. The tria l court orig inally convicted N athan Hutta Jr., upon his plea of g uilty , of deliver y of coc aine in a dr

ug -fr ee
zone. P ursuant to the plea barg ain ag ree ment, the trial cour t suspended the imposition of the
c on fi ne me nt p or

tio n of the se nte nc e and

pla c e d a pp e lla nt o n c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on fo r e ig ht y e a rs . A $1,000 fine w as assessed. At the hea ring on the State’s motion to revoke, a ppellant enter ed plea s of tr ue to s ix of

the State ’s a lle g a tio ns . The tr ia l c ourt fo un d th a t a

pp e lla nt h a d v iol a te d th e te rm s2

and conditions of his community supervision, revoke d his community supervision, and imposed a
se nte nc e of

c on fi ne me nt f

or e ig ht y e ars . We a ff

ir m. Appellant’s c ourt -ap p o i n t edco u n s el h as fi l eda m o t i o nt o wi th dra w. T h e m o t i o ni s s upported by a br ie f i n w hic h c ouns e l pr of e ssi on a lly and

c on sc ie nti ou sly

e xami ne s th e re c or d a

nd a pp lic a ble law and states that he ha s conclude d that t h e appea l is frivolous. Counsel has provided appe llant wi th a c op y of the br ie f a

nd a dv ise d a

pp e lla nt o f h is r ig ht t o r e vie w the re c or d and fi le a re sp on se to c ounsel’s brief

. A re sponse has not bee n filed. Court-appointed c ounsel has complied with the require ments of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 3 86 U. S. 7 38 (1 96 7) ; In re Sc hulman , 2 5 2 S. W. 3 d 4 0 3 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08 ); Sta

ffo rd v . S tat e , 8 13 S.W. 2d

50 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 ); H i gh v . Stat e , 5 73 S.W. 2d 807 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tat e , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Ga ino us v . S

tat e , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Ea den v . S tat e , 161 S.W .3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.)

. Following the proc edure s outlined in An de rs , we have independe ntly revie wed the r ecor d, and we ag ree that the appe al is without merit. I n a community supervision revoc ation hear ing, the State ha s th e burd e n o f p ro vin g by a pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e that a c on dit ion of c omm un ity supervision has bee n violated. Ri c k e ls v . S tat e , 2 0 2 S. W. 3 d 7 5 9 , 7 6 3 ( T e x. Cr im

. A p p . 2006); Cob b v . S tat e , 851 S.W .2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) . Proof of one violation of the terms and conditions of community

supervision is sufficie nt to support the revoc ation. Mc Do na ld v . S

tat e , 608 S.W. 2d 19 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 80 ); Tay lor v . S tat e , 604 S.W .2d 175 (Tex . Crim. App. 1980); Mo se s v . S tat e , 590 S.W .2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). The trial court is the t rier of the fa cts and deter mines the weig ht a

nd cre dibilit y

of the testimony

. Ga rre tt v . S tat e , 6 19 S.W. 2d

17 2 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 19 81 ); Ba rn e tt v . S tat e , 6 1 5 S

. W

. 2 d 2 2 0 ( T e x. C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 1 )

. A p l e a o f t r ue a lon e is sufficie nt to support the trial court’s determination to revoke

. Moses , 5 90 S.W. 2d a t 47 0; Cole v. Sta te , 578 S.W .2d 127, 128 (T ex . C ri m . App. 1979). Appe llate re view of a n order revoking community

supervision is limi ted t o t h e issue of w hether the trial cour

t abused its discretion. Ri c k e ls , 2 0 2 S

. W.3 d a t 76 3; Cor do na v . S tat e , 665 S.W .2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). A revie w of the r ecor d ref

lects that the trial c ourt did not abuse its discretion. We note that counsel has the responsibil ity to advise appellant that he may file a pe tition for discretionar

y revie w by

the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Ex parte Owe ns , 206 S.W .3d 6703

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006). L ikewise, this court a dvises appella n t t h at h e may file a pe tition for d is c r e ti o n ar

y r e v ie w p u r s u an t to T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 66. Blac k v . S tat e , 2 1 7 S. W. 3 d

6 8 7 ( T e x. App.—Eastland 2007, no pe t.). The motion to withdraw is g rante d, and the judg ment is affirme d.

PER C URI AM
April 16, 2009 Do not publish. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S t r an g e , J.