NO. 07-03-0449-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D APRIL 26, 2004

______________________________ BENJAMINE WILLIAM CHIPM AN AKA BENJAMIN W ILLIAM CHIPMAN, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE CRI MINAL DIS TRICT CO URT OF JEF FERSON COU NTY; NO. 86047; HON ORABLE CHAR LES D. CARVER , JUDGE

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS an d CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPIN ION Pursuant to a plea agr

eement, appellant Benj amine William Chipman aka Benjamin William Chip man was convicted of forgery and punishme nt was assessed at two years confinementin a statejail facili ty, suspended for five year s of community

supervis ion. After a hearing on t he State’s motion to re voke, the trial court r evoked appell ant’s community1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 2 supervis ion and assessed theoriginal punishment. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders 1 brief in suppor t of a moti on to wit hdraw. We affirm and grant coun sel’s mot ion t o with draw. In support of his moti on to withdraw, counsel has certified that he has d iligently reviewed the record and, in his opinion, the reco rd reflects no r eversibl e error

or grounds upon which an appeal can be predicated. An ders v. Cali fornia, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 ( 1967). Thus, heconcludes the a ppeal is friv olous and wi thout merit. In compliance w ith High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the control ling authorities, there is no error in the court's ju dgment. Counsel has also shown that he sent a co py of the brief to appellant, and informed appellant that, in counsel'sview , the appeal is wi thout merit. In addition, couns el has demonstrated that h e notified appellant of his rig ht to revi ew the record and file a pro se brief if he desir

ed to do so. By itsbrief the State ag rees wi th appellate couns el that no reversible error is pre sented and the senten ce was within t he pun ishmen t range authorized by statute. Appellant filed a prose response complai ning of his co unsel’s performance at the revoc ation h earing. Areview of the record establishes that appe llant was c onvicted of forg ery on October 7, 2002, and placed o n communit y superv ision for five years. By its amended motion to revoke, on June 24, 2003, the State al leged appell ant had viol ated numerous3

conditionsof hi s co mmuni ty s uper vi sio n. Of the 19 allegatio ns advanced by the State, appellant

free ly and vo luntari ly pled true to viol ating six of the conditions of community supervis ion. Evidence was pr esented on a seventh allegation after which the trial court found appellant had violated the terms of community supervis ion and assessed the origi nal pun ishm ent o f two years conf inem ent i n a st ate j ail f acili ty. Bythe And ers bri ef, co unsel does not raise any arguabl e poi nts. Appe llant, howeve r, complains of hi s counsel ’s pe rfor mance at the revo cati on hear ing. He asserts couns el was he ld in c ontempt for

bein g lat e to t he hear ing a nd al so rep resent ed to him tha t he wo uld on lyreceive 14 m onths for revoca tion of his co m m unity supervision a nd a ne w offe nse. A claim of ineffective assi stance of counsel i s review ed under the standar

d set o ut in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) . Under Strickland, a defendant m ustestablish that (1) counsel ’s performance w as deficient

( i.e. , fell below an objective standard of re a sonableness), and (2) there is a reason able probability

that but for

counsel’s deficient perform ance, the result of the proceeding would have been different, a reas onab le probability being a prob ability sufficient to undermi ne confidence in the outcome. R ylander v . State, 101 S.W.3d 107, 110 (Tex.Cr.App. 2003); seealso Hernandez v . State, 72 6 S.W.2d 53 , 55 (Tex.Cr .App. 1986). Any allegatio n of ineffectiveness must be firmly founde d in the reco rd, an d the record must aff irmatively demonstra te the alleged ineffectiveness. Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 8 1 3 (Tex.Cr.App. 1999). Where, as here, the record on direct appeal is not s ufficient to show thatcounsel’s r

epresentation w

as so deficient as

to meet th e first pron g of Stri ckland ,4

appel lant

has fai led to meet his burden to sho w tha t co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce pre judic ed his defen se. See Mitchell v. State, 68 S.W .3d 640 , 642 (Te x.Cr.App . 2002). App ellate revi ew of a revocat ion o rder is l imit ed to det ermini ng whethe r t he tr ial court abused its discreti on. Cardona v. St ate, 665 S.W .2d 492 , 493 ( Tex.Cr .App. 1984); Jackson v. Stat e, 64 5 S.W .2d 303, 30 5 (Tex.C r.App. 19 83). One sufficient gr ound for revocation supportsthe trial court’s order. Moore v . State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980 ). Addi tion ally, a plea of true standingalone is sufficient to s upport the tri al court’s r evocation order. Moses v . State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex.C r.App. 1979). Appellant’s pl ea of true to six allegations is sufficient to support th e trial court’s revocation order. We have also madean independent examination of the entire record todetermine whether there are any oth er arguabl e grounds w hich might s upport this appea l. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 1 0 2 L
. E d
. 2 d 3 0 0 ( 1 9 8 8 )

. We have found no non -fri vo lous issue s and agree with co unse l tha t the appe al is wit hou t mer it. Cu rrie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974); Lacy v. State, 47 7 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972). Acco rdin gly, counsel's moti on to withdr aw is her eby granted and the judgment of the trial cour t is affirmed. Don H. Reavis Justice Do not publish
.