* John T. Boyd, Chi ef Justice (Ret.), Sevent h Court of Appeals , sitting by assig nment. NO. 07-02-0001-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL E DECEMBER 3, 2002

______________________________ LEE ROY SANCHEZ, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 2 42ND DIST RICT COURT OF HALE COU NTY; NO. B12346-9604; H ONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ. an d BOYD, S.J. *
Pursuant to a plea bargain, app ellant Lee Roy Sanchez was convic

ted of criminal solicitati on and punishment was assessed at five years co nfi nement and a $750 fine, suspended for five years. Upon the State’s motion, community supervis ion was r

evoked for violati ons of conditions and terms thereof, and the origi nal punishment w as assessed.1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 2 In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed a n Anders 1 brief in suppor t of a motion to withd raw. Based upon the rationale expressed herein, the moti on to withdr aw is granted and the judgment i s affirmed.
In support of his moti on to withdraw, counsel has certified that he has d iligently reviewed the record and, in his opinion, the reco rd reflects no r eversibl e error

or grounds upon which an appeal can be predicated. An ders v. Cali fornia, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 ( 1967). Thus, he concludes the a ppeal is friv olous and wi thout merit. In compliance w ith High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978), counsel has discussed w hy, under the control ling authorities, there is no error in the court's ju dgment. Counsel has also shown that he sent a co py of the brief to appellant, and informed appellant that, in counsel'sview , the appeal is wi thout merit. In addition, couns el has demonstrated that h e notified appellant of his rig ht to revi ew the record and file a pro se brief if he desir

ed to do so. Appel lant did not fil e a pro se brief; however, he did file a “Motion for N ew Appointed Counsel.” The S tate did not favor us with a brief. Appellant was conv icted of crimi nal solici tation and placed on community supervis ion in 1996. In 1998, upon t he State’s motion to revoke, the trial court entered an order continuing appellant’s comm unity super vision to seven years wi th modifications to the conditions th ereto. On Octo ber 30, 2001, the State again filed a motio n to revoke alleging that appellant ha d failed t o (1) repor t to his communit

y superv ision officer; ( 2)3

advise his community supervision officer of the correct address of his residence and place of emp loyme nt; ( 3) pa y resti tuti on; a nd (4 ) com plet e com mun ity servicea t the rate of at least eight

hours per month.
Atthe hearing on the State’s motion appellant plead true to the fir st allegat ion and true to the second al legation only to i nstances after M arch 2001 and plead not true to the third and fourth alleg ations. After bei ng properl y admonished, t he tri al court found that appellant’s pleas of true were f reely, volun tarily, and knowingl y made. Appellant’s community

supervis ion officer testi fied that he had failed to report as directed since March 2001 until the dateof the hearing h eld on December 10, 2001. She further testi fied that he was deli nquent

in the amount of $400 in restitutio n paymentsand $320 in arrears in his probation fees. Regardi ng the eight hours per month minimum of community ser

vice, the officer testified that appe llant had failed to com plete eight hours for various months since August1998 through O ctober 2001. On cross-examination, defense couns el showed discrepanci es in the communit y serv ice hours per

formed. Appellant

testified and ex plained that after hearing the testimony of hi s community supervis ion officer

rega rding resti tution payme nts, he agreed w ith her figur es notwithsta nding his plea of not true. He tes tified that du e to per sonal probl ems and som e difficult tim es, he did not comply with the required conditions of community supervis ion since March 2001. Following appellant’s testimony, the trial court revoked his community supervis ion based on hispleas of true and t he evidence pr esented.4

When review ing an order revoking community supervision, the sole question before this Court is w hether 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 supervis ion. Cobb v. S tate, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex .Cr.App. 1993). Althoug h one sufficient ground for r

evocation s upports the tr ial court’s or der, Moore v . State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980), a plea of true sta nding alone i s sufficient to supp ort the trial court’s revocation order. Moses v. State, 590 S.W .2d 469, 470 (Tex.Cr.App. 19 79). Appellant’s comm unit y s upervis ion officer presented evidence of thealleged violatio ns of community super vision and appellant plead true to two of the allegations. He also testified that he agreed with the evidence presented estab lishing he was in arrears in restitution pa ym ents. Based on theforegoing, we find the trial court di d not abuse its discretion in re voki ng app ellan t’s commu n ity super vision and imposing theoriginal sentence.
The assistance of

counsel is only guar

anteed if this Cou rt determines, after its own separate inquiry , that nonfrivolous issuesare presented i n this appeal. See Pens on v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S .Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988) . Having found no nonfrivol ous issues after an independent exa mination of the entir e record, w

e have rev iewed themerits of the ap peal witho ut the assista nce of new couns el and find that the a ppeal is friv olous and witho ut me rit. Cu rrie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr. App. 1974); Lacy v. State, 47 75

S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972 ). Thus, appellant’s pro se motion for appointment of new counsel is overruled.
Acco rdin gly, counsel's moti on to withdr aw is hereby

granted and th e judgment of the trial cour t is affirmed.
Don H. Reavis Justice Do not publish

.