1 John T. Boyd, Chi ef Justice (Ret.), Se venth Co urt of Appeals, si tting by

assignment. NO. 07-03-0286-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL E APRIL 20, 2004

______________________________ JIMMY WASHINGT ON, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 2 42ND DIST RICT COURT OF HALE COU NTY; NO. B13049-9806; H ONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ. an d BOYD, S.J. 1 MEMORANDUM OPIN ION Followi ng his p lea of not true, the trial court h eard ev idencethat ap pella nt Jim my Washington had violated several conditions of hi s community s upervisi on, which had been2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 2 granted upon his conviction for burglaryof a habitation. F inding that the State’s al legations were supported by

the evidence, appellant ’ s community s upervisi on was rev oked and punishment

was asses sed at five years confinement and a $1,000 fine. In presenting this appeal, counsel has fil ed an Anders 2 brief in suppor t of a motion to withdraw. We aff irm and grant coun sel’s moti on to withd raw. In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that he has dil igently reviewed the record and, in his opini on, the record r eflects no reversi ble error o r grounds upon which an appeal can be predicated. A nders v. C alifornia, 386 U .S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Thus, he concludes th e appeal is friv olous and wi thout merit. In compliance with Hi gh v. Sta te, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cr .App. 1978), couns el has discussed w hy, under thecontrolli ng authoriti es, there is no error in the court's judgment. Counsel has also shown that h e sent a copy of the brief to appell ant, and informed appellant that, in counse l's view, the appeal is without merit. In addition, counsel has demonstrated that

he notified appellan t of his right to review the record and file a pro se brie f if he desired to do so. Appellant did not file a pro se brief and the State di d not favo r uswi th a b rief. Areview of the record establishes that appellant was convic ted of bu rglar

y of a habitation in 1998 and placed on commu nity supervision for five years. On February21, 2002, the State filed a mot ion to revoke alleging appellant had v iolated the following3

conditionsof his community supervis ion: (1) failed to report; (2) failed to report a c hange of address or change of emplo yment wit hin 4 8 hours; (3) failed to pay restitution and community

sup ervi sion fees; and (4) did not refrain from use of alcohol or controlled substances. Atthe hea ring on the S tate’s motion appell ant’scommu nity supervis ion officer testified that he failed to r eport as req uired in Hal e County for t h e mon ths of M ay, June, and October 1999, and June, July , and August 2000
. After his community sup ervisi on was transferred to Taylor C ounty, he als o failed to report ther e, and by mail in Hale Cou nty for the mon ths o f Se ptem ber, Octo ber, Nove m ber, and December 2001, and January

and February2002. Testimony w as also prese nted that appellant did not repor

t a change of address after moving from Abilene, and at the time the State ’s motion was filed, his whereaboutswere unknown. Appellant was also deli nquent in communi ty superv ision fees and on September 27, 2001 , his urine specimen containe d cocaine. During his testimony

appe ll ant admitted he had not reported to hi s community supervis ion off icer i n Hale Coun ty. He claimed, however , that he contacte d the community supervis ion office in Taylor County regardinghis transfer and was informed that there was no paperwork

or file on him. He never received a letter reg arding his transfer and made no further attem pts to contact t he office. He acknow ledged liv ing in Abi lene for six or seven months and then moving to El Paso, w here he wasarrested tw ice.4

When review ing an order revoking community supervision, the sole question before this Court is whether the tri al court abused its discr etion. Jacks on v. State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex.Cr .App. 1983). In arevocati on proceeding , the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant v iolated a condi tion of community super vision. Cobb v. S tate, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex.Cr .App. 1993). One suf ficien t ground for revocat ion supports t he trial cour t’s order. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.Cr.A pp. 19 80). The evidence pr esented supports the State’s all egations; thus , the trial cour t did not abuse i ts discreti on in revok ing appellan t’s community supervis ion. We have also made an independent ex amination of theentire reco rd to determine whethe r there are any other

arguable g rounds whi ch might suppor t this appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed .2d 3 00 (1 988 ). W e have found no non-frivol ous is sues a nd ag ree wit h cou nsel that the a ppe al is wit hou t mer it. Cu rrie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974 ); Lacy v . State, 477 S
. W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972). Acco rdin gly, counsel's motion to withdraw is hereby g ranted and the judg ment of the trial cour t is affirmed. Don H. Reavis Justice Do not publish
.