NO. 07-03-0167-CR 07-03-0168-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D APRIL 7, 2004

______________________________ TOBE JOE CARILLO, APPEL LANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 2 42ND DIST RICT COURT OF HALE COU NTY; NO. B12323-9603; B 12324-9603; HONO RABLE ED SELF, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS an d CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION
Tobe Joe Caril lo appeals the r evocation of hi s community s upervisi on. W e affirm the revocat ion.
Carillo pleaded guil ty

on May 2, 1996, to two counts of burglar y of a habitati on. The judge of the 242 nd District Court of Hale County sentenced Carillo to ten years confinementin the Texas Department of Cri minal Justice, Institution al Divi sion and a-2-

$500.00 fine on each count

. The sentences were suspended and C arillo w as placed on ten years co mmunity super vision. The State file d its first motions to revoke Carillo’s community

supervis ion in Octobe r o f 1996. After a hearing , the court con tinued the community

supe rvisio n but requi red h im to serve nine ty days in the county j ail and attend a Dail y Rep ortin g Cen ter Pr ogram
. The State filed itssecond mot ion s to revoke Carillo ’s community supervis ion on September

26, 2002, and on March 10, 2003, amended the moti ons allegi ng that he violated the conditions

of community super

vision by committing the offense s of theft, pub lic int oxication, failing to r eport to his community super vision officer , failing topay hi s probation fees, an d failing to report his arrest or detention within 24 hou rs.
On March 18, 2003, after a hear ing, Carill o pleaded true to all the alle gations contained in the State’s amended motions, except for an alleg ation he had committed theft. The State deleted the allegation of theft from both motions befo re appellant entered his pleas. On being q uestioned by the trial court, appellant stated that he und ersto od the potential consequences of his pleas and tha t he had notbeen promised anything in exchange for his pleas. Written stipulations of ev idence sig ned and swor n to byCarillo, stating that he had committe d each of the violations alleged by the State , were admitted in evidence. He testif ied at th e hearin g a nd asked the cour t to continue hi s community supervis ion. While on community super vision he had attended college and , at one point, assisted the probation departm ent by speaking to other probationers abo ut how to comply wit h th e requirements of their probat ion. He asked the court to allow him to continue his education and prov ide a home for his t hree-year -old son.-3-

The State presented t he testimony of Carillo’s community sup ervisi on officer. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found each of the State’s allegatio ns true, rev oked Carillo’s community sup ervisi on , and sentenced him to te n years confinement in the Institutional Divis ion of the Texas Depar tment of Criminal Justice for both of th e offenses, with sentences to run concurrently. He timely filed a notice ofappeal. Carillo’ s counsel has filed a bri ef stating that he has carefully examined the record and researched th e law, and i s unable to find a meritorious error to argue tothis Court . The brief thoroughly

discusses t he evidence pr esented at

the hearing on the motion to rev oke. Counse l concludes t hat there is no reversible error in this case, and that the ap peal is frivolous. See An ders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 -45, 87 S.Ct.139 6, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel als o has filed a motion to withdr aw, has pr

ovided a copy

of his br ief to Carillo, and by letter informed him of his rights to review the trial record and to file a pro se bri ef. See Johnson v. Sta te , 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex.App.--Waco 1994, pet. ref’d). By letter dated July 21, 2003, this court also notif ied him of his o pportuni ty to submit a response to the Andersbrief and motion to withdraw filed by hi s counsel, g ranting him until August 18, 2003, to do so. This court’sletter als o reminded Cari llo to contact the clerk of this court or his counsel if he needed to review any part of the appellate record to prepare a response. H e has not filed a r esponse. In conformity w ith the standar ds set out

by the United States Suprem e Court, we will notrule on the moti on to withdr aw until we have independently examined the r ecord. Nicholsv. State , 9 54 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1 997, no pet.). If this court-4-

determines the appeal has mer it, we w ill remand i t to the trial court for appointment of

new counsel. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Cri m.App. 1991). Appellate review

of a revocati on order

is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discr

etion. Cardona v. State , 665 S.W .2d 492, 493 (Tex.Crim.App . 1984); Jacksonv. State , 645 S.W.2 d 303, 305 (Tex. Crim.App. 1983) . The trial co urt abuses its discretion in revoki ng community supervis ion if the State fail s to meet its bur den of pro of. Cardona , 665 S.W.2d at 493-94. In a revocati on proceeding , the St ate mu st prove by a preponderance of the evide nc e that appellant v iolated a condi tion of community supervis ion as alleg ed in the motion to revoke. Cobb v. State , 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex.Cri m.App. 1993); Becker v. State , 33 S.W.3d 64, 66 (Tex.App.–El Pas o, 2000, no pet.). The tri al judge i s the sole tr ier of the facts. Taylor v. State , 604 S.W.2d 175, 179 (Tex.Cri m.App. 1980). A defendant’s plea of true to an alleged v iolation, standing alone, is suffici ent to support th e revocati on. Moses v. State , 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex.Cri m.App. 1979). In dete rmin ing the sufficie ncy of the ev idence to sustai n a revocat ion, we v iew 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). C arillo’spl eas of true to four all eged viol ations of the conditionsof his community supervis ion in the u nderlying trial cour t Cause No. B12 324- 9603 and to five al leged vi olations in trial court Cause N o. B123 23-9 603 , and the re spec tive stipulationsof evidence, s upport the court ’s judgments . There is nothi ng in the record to suggestthat he wasincompetent or t h at his pleas and stipulations w ere not made knowi ngly, voluntari ly or i ntelligent ly. The record contains s ome evidence i n mitigatio n of-5-

some of his viol ations, but w hen, as here, mor e than one vio lation is al leged, proof of any
one of them is sufficient to support rev ocation. Moore v. Stat e , 605 S.W.2d 9 24, 9 26 (Tex.Cri m.App. 1980); Gobell v. Stat e , 528 S.W.2d 223 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975) ; McCollum v. State , 784 S.W .2d 702, 704-05 (Te x.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, pet. ref'd). Our review convinces us that appella te counsel conduc ted a diligent

an d conscientious

review of the record. W e have also made an independent ex amination of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might suppor t the appeal. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. We agree it presents no meritorious grounds for revie w. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Carillo’s communi ty supervis ion. W e grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and aff irm the ju dgments of the trial court.

James T. Campbell Justice Do not publish

.