## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________ No. 07
- 14
- 00228
- CR

________________________ KENDRA DRAUGHAN , APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 137th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Tri a l Court No. 2010
- 428,943 ; Honorable John J. McClendon III , Presiding

December 15 , 201 4 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant, Kendra Draughan, was indicted for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200, a first degree felony. 1 I n exchange for a plea of guilty, on June 7, 2011, she was convicted of the lesser included offense of possession with intent to deliver cocaine in an amount of one gram

1 T EX
. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN . § 481.112(d) (West 2010)2

or more but less than four , 2 and sentenced to ten years , suspended in favor of five years community supervision. 3 In May 2013 , the State moved to revoke Appellant’s community supervision for violations of the terms and conditions thereof. The State amended its motion in June 2013 and a hearing was held on th at motion. Appellant pled true to some but not all of the State’s allegations. After hearing testimony, the trial court found all the a llegations to be true and assessed Appellant’s punishment at ten years confinement. A timely appeal was not perfected; however, p ursuant to a writ of habeas corpus, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted Appellant an out
- of
- time appeal. In presentin g this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders 4 brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm. In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a conscientious examination of the record , and in his opi nion, the record reflects no potentially plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction. Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744
- 45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel candidl y discusses why, under the controlling authorities, the record supports that conclusion. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated he has complied with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) pro viding a copy of the brief to Appellant, (2) notifying h er of h er right to review the record and file a pro se response

2 T EX
. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN
. § 481.112(c) (West 20 10 ). The lesser included offense is a second degree felony.

3 Community supervision was modified in January 2013 to include a five
- year extension and treatment for substance abuse

.

4 Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).3

if s he desired to do so, 5 and (3) informing her of h er right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408. 6 By letter, this Court granted Appellant an opportunity to exercise h er right to file a response to counsel’s brief, should s he be so inclined. Id. at 409 n.23. Appellant did not file a response. By letter, the State acknowledged the fil ing of the Anders brief and notified this Court it would not be filing a brief.
B ACKGROUND Appellant is in her mid
- twenties, disabled and has undergone numerous surgeries for cancer. She testified she used marihuana to alleviate the pain. However, she acknowledged that Texas criminalizes the use of marihuana. Her community supervision officer testified to numerous technical violations of the conditions of community supervision, including behavioral issues and her unsuccessful discharge from a treatment facility. Appellant tested positive numerous times for marihuana use and once for cocaine use. Appellant testified that her inability to comply with the terms of community supervision w as due in part to lack of transportation. She also offered her personal difficulty in adjusting to the treatment programs as an excuse for noncompliance. In

5 This Court is aware of the decision in Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
6 Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of h er right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review upon execution of the Trial Court ’ s Certification of Defendant ’ s Right of Appeal , counsel must comply with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together with notification of h er right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22 & 411 n.35. The duty to send the client a copy of the court of appeals’s decision is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. Id. at 411 n.33.4

finding the State’s allegations to be true, the trial court advised Appellant that her conduct did not express a desire for treatment and held her to the ter ms of her agreement. By the Anders brief, counsel suggests as an arguable issue that Appellant’s punishment was excessive and violated the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Counsel then concedes the argument has no merit. Generally, punis hment assessed within the statutory range is not excessive, cruel or unusual. See Dale v. State , 170 S.W.3d 797, 799 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (citing Jordan v. State , 495 S.W.2d 949, 952 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973))

. S TANDARD OF R EVIEW
When reviewi ng an order revoking community supervision, the sole question before this Court is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Cardona v. State , 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); J

ackson v. State , 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). In a revocation proceeding, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the probationer violated a condition of community supervision as alleged in the motion. Cobb v. State , 8 51 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). If the State fails to meet its burden of proof, the trial court abuses its discretion in revoking community supervision. Cardona , 665 S.W.2d at 494 . In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a revocation, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Jones v. State , 589 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).5

Additionally, a plea of true standing alo ne is sufficient to support a trial court’s revocation order. Moses v. State , 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).
We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there are any non - frivolous issues which might support the a ppeal. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409; Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have found no such issues. See Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree with counsel that there is no plausible basis for reversal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826
- 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed and counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.

Patrick A. Pirtle Justice Do not publish.