Opinion filed April 16, 2009

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

____________

No. 11-08-00283-CR

__________

 NATHAN HUTTA JR., Appellant

V.

 STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 104th District 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 appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision. The trial court

originally convicted Nathan Hutta Jr., upon his plea of guilty, of delivery of cocaine in a drug-free

zone. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court suspended the imposition of the

confinement portion of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for eight years.

A $1,000 fine was assessed. At the hearing on the State’s motion to revoke, appellant entered pleas

of true to six of the State’s allegations. The trial court found that appellant had violated the terms
2

and conditions of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision, and imposed a

sentence of confinement for eight years. We affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported

by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable

law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant

with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a response

to counsel’s brief. A response has not been filed. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573

S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173

(Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.).

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record,

and we agree that the appeal is without merit. In a community supervision revocation hearing, the

State has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a condition of community

supervision has been violated. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006);

Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Proof of one violation of the terms and

conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support the revocation. McDonald v. State, 608

S.W.2d 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Taylor v. State, 604 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980);

Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). The trial court is the trier of the facts and

determines the weight and credibility of the testimony. Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1981); Barnett v. State, 615 S.W.2d 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). A plea of true alone is

sufficient to support the trial court’s determination to revoke. Moses, 590 S.W.2d at 470; Cole v.

State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). Appellate review of an order revoking

community supervision is limited to the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion.

Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763; Cordona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). A

review of the record reflects that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file a petition for

discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670
3

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Likewise, this court advises appellant that he may file a petition for

discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 66. Black v. State, 217 S.W.3d 687 (Tex.

App.—Eastland 2007, no pet.).

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

April 16, 2009

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.