1 John T. Boyd, Chi ef Justice (Ret.), Sev enth Court ofAppeals, sitti ng by assignment. Tex . Gov ’t CodeAnn. §7 5.002 (a)(1 ) (Vern on 19 98). NO. 07-03-0108 -CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L E SEPTE MBE R 4, 2003

______________________________ JUANITA VALLEJO, APP ELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE222 ND DISTRICT COURT OF DEAF SMITH COUNT Y; NO. CR-94J-130; HONORAB LE FELIX KLEIN, J UDGE

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, S.J. 1 Appellant Jua nit a Vallejo appeals froma judgm ent revoking her com munity supervision and sentencing her to three years im prisonment. In 1995, appellant pled guilty to the offense of theft of property w ith a value of mo re than $750 and less than $20,000 pursuantto a plea bargain agreemen t. She w as sentenced to eight years confinemen t, which sentence w

as probated for eight

years. The State subseque ntly filed an amended2 The letter was returned as undeliv erable. Thi s court knows of no other address at

which appellant can be contacted. 2 mot ion to revoke h er pr obation in which it alleged that she had 1) failed to report to her probation officer

from August 1995 through October 2001, 2) been in a place of harm ful character

where alcoholic beverages are allowed, and 3) failed t o m ake her m ont hly payments. At the hearing, appellant pled true tothe first and third grounds, although (with respect to the third ground) she claimed to be unab le to pay. The trial court found that the allegations in the first and third paragraphs were true and revoked her probation. Appella nt’s c ounse l has now m oved to w ithdraw, after filing a brief pursuant to Anders v. Cali fornia, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct . 1396, 18 L.Ed.2 d 493 (1967) and representing thatshe has searched the record and found no arguab le grounds for reversal. The m otion and brief ill ustrate that counsel notified appellant of her right to review the appellate record and file her own brief. So too did we attem ptto in fo rm ap pe ll an t a t h erla st kno wn address
ava ilableto us that any pro se response or brief she cared to file had to be filed by Septem ber 3, 2003. 2 No response has been received. In com pliance with the p rinc ip les enunciated in Anders , appellate counsel explained
w hy t her e ex iste d noarg uab le ground for appeal. For instance, sheacknow ledged that appell ant’s plea of

true to any one of t he grounds alleged in the motion to revoke probation
wassufficien t to support the decision to revoke her probat ion. See Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (so holding). Appellate counsel also explained why tria l cou nse l did not render ineffective assistance, desp ite appellant’s statem ent at the revocation hearing that she w ished that he r retained counsel had obtained all of her3 The rec ord in dicates that the rev ocation hearing was adjourned to some ti me l ater to all ow

appe llant’s

counsel time to obta in her medica l record s. 3 medical records back to1995. Those records purportedly w ould have shown that she had b een unable to r eport to her pr obation of ficer due to numerous m edical appointments. 3 Moreover, nothing of rec ord would p ermit this court to concl ude that but for cou nsel’s alleged om ission, the result of the proceeding wou ld hav e be en d if ferent. Indeed, the records appellant obtained d id not s ubstantiate her claim that she had m edical appointments

three to five tim es a wee k and, therefore, w as u nab le to repor t. The re cord beforeus also illustrates that appellant had her m edical problems prior to being placed on probation but only reported the fi rst two mont hs to he r pr oba tion off

icer . S o to o do es it depict that appellantfailed to telephone her probati on officer to explain her circumstances. Thus, even if appellant had not pled true to the allegation that she failed to report, the trial court would have been f

ree to believe that her

me dical appointments did not prevent her from reporting or making othe r arrangements to fulfi ll her reporti ng requi rements. We have also conducted an independent review of the record to determ ine whether there existed reversible error and found none. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (T ex. Cr i m. App. 1991) (requiring us to conduct an independent review). No app eal was taken with in 30 da ys fromthe date of appellant’s guilty plea and order placing her on
com munity

sup er vision; thus, we have no jurisdiction over purported error arising at or beforethat hearing. Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 66 1 (Tex . Crim . App. 1999). Further, the punishm ent assessed was w ithin the range prescribed by law. T EX . P EN . C ODE A NN . §31.03(e)(4)(A) (Vernon Supp. 1993) (stating the offense is a third degree4

felony); Id. §12.34(a) (stating the range of punishm ent for a third degree felony is n ot m ore than te n yearsor less t han tw o years ). Acco rdingly, w

e grant counsel’sm otion to withdraw and aff irm the judgm entof

the trial court.

Brian Quinn Justice Do not publish.