NO. 07-09 -021 9-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D OC TOBER19, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ T INA SHERON YARBROUGH, APPEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 24 2 ND DI ST RI CT COU RT OF S W IS HE R CO UNT Y; NO . B 4084- 06- 10; H ON ORABLE ED SELF , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t Ti n a S h e ron Y ar broug h appea ls from t he j udg ment rev oki ng her communi ty

su per v is ion and sent enci ng her to ten years in the Inst it uti onal Div is ion of the T exas Departm entof

Cri min al Justice. Appe llant's atto rney ha s f iled a brief in comp liance w it h Anders

v. C ali for nia , 386 U. S. 7 38, 8 7 S. Ct . 139 6, 18 L.E d.2d 493 (1 967) and In re Schulm an, 252 S.W .3d 4 03 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2008) and cer ti fies that there are no nonf riv olou s issues to app eal. Agreein g w ith ap poin ted coun sel’s conclusio n the record fails to s how any arg uabl y

mer it or iou s i ss ue th at c ould s u p p o rt the appeal , we aff ir m the tr ial cour t’ s j udg ment.SeeTe x . Health & Safety C ode Ann. § 481 .11 5(d) (Vernon 20 0 3 ). T h is i s a 1 sec ond deg re e felony

puni shabl e by

i mpri sonmentfor a ter m of not more tha n 20 y ears o r les s t han 2 y ears a nd a fine not to ex ceed $10,000
. Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 12.33 (V er non 2003)
. 2 In O cto ber

2006, appel lan t w as ind icted for “i ntent ion all y or kn ow ing ly

pos ses s[i ng ], w i th i nt en t to d el i v er , a c on trol l ed s ub s ta nc e, n am el y , c oc ai ne , i n an a mo un t of fou r g ram s or more butl ess than 200 g ra ms.” I n Apr il 2007, appell ant w as found g uil ty as cha rg ed 1 by a j u r y a n d w a s s e n t e n c e d t o t e n y e a rs i n t h e I n s t i t u t i o n a l D i v i s i o n o f the Tex as Depa rtme nt of

Cri min al Justice a n d a $5 ,00 0 f ine w as imp osed against her. T he co urt suspe nde d ap pellan t’s prison sen ten ce a n d p la ced h er on com mu nity supe rv ision for a per iod of fiv e y ears. Appel lan t’ s s upervisio n was condi ti oned on her co mpli ance w it h specif ied te rms an d con dition s. T here af ter, on M a rch 25, 2 009 , the State f iled a m otion to rev oke a ppe llant’s communi ty

su per v is ion
. The Stat e al leg ed appe l l a n t co mmitt ed th e new

offense of ev adi ng a pol ic e off ic er

w hil e on communi ty

su per v is ion
. The Stat e a lso a ll eg ed appe ll ant fai led to pa y required restitu tion, a com mu nity supe rv ision fee, and her required Crime Sto ppe r’s pay ments for c ertai n months
. The Stat e also al leg ed appell ant fail ed to avo id the use of alc ohol and dr ug s, ind ic ated by a c ocai ne- posi ti v e ur ine tes t. Las tl y , t he St ate a ll eg ed appel lan t fail ed to co mplet e her req uired c ommunity

se rv ic e. On Ju n e 3, 20 0 9 , t h e t ria l co u rth e a rd t h e S ta te ’s m o ti o n t o re vok e . Atth a t h e a rin g, appel lan t pl ead ” tr ue” to each of the St ate’ s a ll eg ati ons. The c our t rec e ived a s ig ned sti pul ati on of ev ide nce ind ic ati ng appel lan t’ s p lea of “t ru e” to the S tate’ s a ll eg ati ons. The trial court prop erly

adm onish ed a ppe llant con cerning her plea of “true.”3

Appel lan t’ s c o m munity su per v is ion off ic er

tes ti fied i n s uppor

t of the moti ons to re v oke. Ap pel lan t tes ti fied, deny ing her use of c ocai ne. She al so tes ti fied to her efforts to f ind employ ment and to a j ob oppo rt uni ty thatw as av ail abl e i f her communi ty su per v is ion w as not rev oked. Ap pel lan t al so admitted t o bei ng del inq uent in pay ing req uired fees a nd to failing to comple te the required com mu nity serv ice. App ellantalso indicat ed to the cou rt her de sire to cont inue her com mu nity supe rv ision an d state d a f riend ha d of fered to help her make her re q uired pay ments. The frie nd tes ti fied to his w il li ng ness to ass is t her
. On cross-examina tion, app ellantadm it t e d s he kn ew tha t inten tiona lly f leeing f rom a police off ic er thatw as tr

y ing to sto p her w as ag ain st the law and commi tti ng an offense w hil e on communi ty

su per v is ion w as prohi bit ed. Based on ap pellan t’s pl e a o f “ t ru e ” an d the ev iden ce prese nte d be fore it, the court re v oked appel lan t’ s c ommunity su per v is ion and ass ess ed appe llan t’ s p uni shmentat confine ment for a peri od of ten y ears. The cour

t cer ti fied appell ant’ s ri g ht of appeal a nd she tim ely f iled no tice of app eal. Thereafter , app ell ant' s a ppoi nted appel lat e couns el filed a moti on to w it hdraw and a br ief i n s uppor

t pursuantto Anders in w hic h he cer ti fies that he has di li g entl y rev iewed the record and , in his profession al opin ion, u nde r th e cont rolling aut horities and facts of this cas e, t here i s n o rev ersi ble er ro r or l eg it imat e g ro unds on w hic h a n o n -f riv olo us appeal arg uabl y ca n be predi cat ed. The br ief di sc uss es the p ro cedural his tor y of t he c ase and t he proceed ing s i n c onnecti on w it h the moti on to rev oke appel lan t’ s c ommunity su per v is ion
. Cou nsel di sc uss es the a ppl ic abl e l aw and set s for

th the reason s h e bel iev es there are no arg uabl y mer it or iou s is sues on w hic h to appeal
. Cou nsel has cert ified thata c opy of the4

Anders br ief and moti on to w it hdraw hav e been s er v ed on appel lan t, and t hat c ounse l has adv is ed appell ant of her rig ht to rev iew

the re cord and file a pro se respon se. John son v. State , 885 S.W .2d 641 , 645 (Tex.App .–W aco 1 994 , pet
. ref'd). By letter, th is Court also noti fied appe ll ant of he r oppor tuni ty to submi t a re spons e to t he Anders br ief and moti on to w ithdra w f iled by her counsel. App ellant f iled a respo nse addressin g h e r c oun sel’s mo t i o n a n d b r i e f. In con formity w ith the stand ards set o ut by the Un ited Sta tes Su prem e Court, we w ill not r ule on t he moti on to w it hdraw until we hav e i ndependen tl y ex amined the re cord. Nichol s v. State , 954 S.W .2d 83, 86 (T ex.App. –Sa n Ant onio 199 7, no pet. ). If th is Court deter mines the appeal has meri t, w e w il l re mand i t t o the tr ial co urt for appoi ntment of new couns el. See S taff

or d v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 503 , 511 (Tex.Crim.App .19 91). Cou nsel poi nts to two pot enti al is sues , t he l eg al and factu al suffi cie n cy of the ev ide nce to suppo rt the re v ocat ion of appel lan t’ s c ommunity su per v is ion
. In he r re spons e, appel lan t rais es si milar c o m p lai nts . C ounse l conc lud es the e v ide nce w as suffici ent t o sat is fy the S tate’ s b urden t o prov e eac h al leg ati on by a prep o n d e ra nce of the ev ide nce. Appel lan t pl ead “ tr ue” to all of the St ate’ s a ll eg ati ons. A ple a of “ tr ue” to ev en one al l e g a t i o n i n t h e S t a t e ’ s m o t i o n i s s u ffi c i e n tt o s u p p o rta j u d g me n tre v o k i n g c o mm u nity super v is ion
. Cole v

. St ate, 5 7 8 S .W .2d 1 27, 1 28 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1979) ; Lewis v. Sta te, 195 S. W .3d 2 05, 2 09 ( Tex .App. –San A ntoni o 2006, pet. d e n ie d ). W e find als o tha t t he re cord prov ide s n o reason to doubt that appel lan t freel y , know ing ly , and v olu ntar il y ente re d her pl ea of “ tr ue” to the a ll eg ati ons cont ain ed i n the Sta te’ s mot ion to re v oke.Cou nsel sh all , w it hin fiv e days a fter t he opini on is handed dow n, s end hi s c li ent a 2 copy of the o pin ion and jud g ment, alo ng w it h not ific ati on of the defendant’ s r ig ht t o fil e a pr o s e peti ti on for dis creti onar y rev iew
. See Tex . R . Ap p. P . 48. 4.

5 W e not e al so the re cord does not s uppor t a cont enti on th at t he c our t acted o uts ide th e zon e of

rea so n a b le n e ss in im p o sin g ap p e lla n t’ s se n te n ce as i tw a s w it h in th e ran ge prosc ri bed by

the Penal C ode for thi s o ffense. See Te x . H e a l t h &S a fe ty C ode Ann. § 481.115 (d ) (V er non 2003) ; Tex
. Penal Cod e Ann. § 12.33 (V er non 2003)
. See also Jor dan v. State, 495 S.W .2d 9 49, 9 52 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1973) ; Rod ri guez v. State, 917 S.W .2d 9 0, 92 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 1996, pet. re f’d) (Texas cour ts hav e tradi ti onal ly

hel d tha t as l ong as the sente nce is w ithin the ran ge o f p unish me nt esta blished bythe Le gisl atu re in a v alid sta tute, i t doe s n ot v iol ate s tate or federal prohi bit ion s)
. Our rev iew co nv inc es us that appel lat e c ounse l condu cte d a compl ete re v iew of the re cord. W e h a ve als o made a n i ndependen t examinat ion of the e nti re record, i ncl udi ng appel lan t’ s respon se, to deter mine w hether there are any

arg uabl e g ro u n d s whic h mig ht suppo rtthe appeal from t he rev ocat ion and se n tenc e. W e ag re e the record present s n o arg uabl y mer it or iou s g ro unds for rev iew
. Acc ordin g ly , we g ra nt couns el' s moti on to w it hdraw2 and affirm the j udg ment of the tr ial co urt.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice Do not p ubl is h.