NO. 07-01-0474-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A MAY 15, 2002

______________________________ ISMAEL PUENTA CASTILL O, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 242 ND DISTRIC T COURT O F SW ISHER COUN TY; NO. B3614-0010; H ONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS an d JOHNSON, JJ. On April 2, 2001 , appellant Ismael Pu enta Castill o pled guil ty to the offense of indecency with a child. Pur suant to a plea bargai n agreement, adj udication was deferred and he was pl aced on community supervis ion for seven years. O n October 31, 2001, after a request by

the State to proceed with an adjudi cat ion of guilt, the court found appell ant violated the conditionsof his community supervis ion, adjudicated him guilt y of the orig inal offense, and sentenced him to ten yearsconfinement in the Ins titutional D ivisio n of the2

Department

of Criminal Justice and a fine of $5,000. Appellant

gave noti ce of appeal from that judgment. Appellant’s appointed attorney has now fil ed a motion to withdraw , together w ith an Anders brief. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 -45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). In that brief, he certifies that after careful examination of the record, he ha s concluded that appellant’ s appeal is w ithout merit. Along w ith his br i ef, he has attached a copy of

a letter sent

to appellant i nforming him of hisintent to w ithdraw and appellant’s right to proceed pro se . This court a lso informed appell ant by lette r dated Februar y 22, 2002, that he was granted until March 22, 2002, to file a response to the b rief and motion. To date, neither a response no r a m otion for exten sion of time to file one has been received.
In considering requests of this type, w e must first sat isfy oursel ves that the attorney has provided the client with a diligent and thorough search of th e record for any arguable claim that might support his c lient’s appeal . Then we must determine if counsel has correctlyconcluded the appea l is frivolous. See McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin , 486 U.S. 429, 108 S.C t. 1895, 100 L.Ed.2d 44 0 (1988); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cr im.App. 1978).
The State alleg ed that appellant violated hi s commun i ty superv ision by (1) assaulting Flor Isela Macias, (2) possessing a useable quant ity of marij uana in an amount of two ounces or less, ( 3) failing to p a y his fine, court costs, and attorneys fees for the3

months of May, June, and July 2001, (4) failing to complete eig ht hou rs of co mmunity supervis ion per month, (5) failing to pa y the sex ual assault pr ogram fund fee o f $5 per month, and (6) being within 100 yards of a r esidence, school or other location where there are children u nder the age of 18 by being present at th e Tulia Picnic Carnival where children were in attendance, and being with a female under 17 on Ju ly 24, 2001. Appellant pled not true to the ch arges. Th e judgm ent recites that appellant comm itted an offe nse against the laws of the State, fai led to pa y, perform communi ty serv ice, avoi d controlled substances and c hildren under 18.
In discussing any

possible g rounds for appeal, counsel ha s reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing . Leo Marti nez, custodi an of the recordsfor the Adult Pr obation Dep artment

of Swisher County, testified that app ellant was delinquent in payment of his fees for May, J une, and July , and that he had not completed his community service at the rate of eight hours per month. Macias test ified that on July 23, appellant as saulted her and when police arr ived the nex t day to ser

ve an arre st warr

ant on him, they

found marijuana at he r house that bel onged to him. M acias, w ho is 15, alsotestified that she wa s previously

warned not to be with appellant because he was on pr obation. She further stated that appell ant had gone to th e Tulia Picnic Carnival at least once. Appellant

denied assaulting Macias, al though he admitted he was at her house on July24, 2001. He furthe r denied thatthe marijuana found t here belonged to him or that he had attended the car nival. H e stated he had been employed for a short peri od of time, butonly made $50. Because of that, he had not pai d the req uired fees, and he di d not4

perform eight hours

of community ser

vice every month beca use he was looking for a job. He further conce ded he had been dating Macias in August 2001.
In a probation r

evocation hearing , the trial judge is the trier of facts and th e sole judge of the credibil ity of the w itnesses and theweight to be give n their testi mony. Battle
v. State , 571 S.W.2d 20, 21 (Tex.C rim.App. 1978). An order rev oking probat ion shall be affirmed if one sufficie nt ground for r evocation s upports the orde r. Moore v. Stat e , 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.Cri m.App. 1980). Bas ed on the testimony present ed at th e hearin g, the record sup ports the cour t’s revocation. We have also madean independent examin ation of the entire record to determine whether there are any arg uable groundswhich mi ght support t he appeal. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We have found no such grounds a nd agree with coun sel that the appeal is wi tho ut merit a nd is therefore fri volous. Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974).
Acco rdin gly, counsel’s motion to wi thdraw is hereby g ranted, and the j udgment of the trial court is affirmed.

John T. Bo yd Chief Justice Do not publish

.