* John T. Boyd, Chi ef Justi ce (Ret.), Seventh Court of Ap peals, sitting by

assignment

. NO. 07-02-0125 -CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L E NOVEM BER 22, 2002

______________________________ PAULINE PERA LES, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 64 TH DISTRI CT COURT OF HALE COUNT Y; NO. A12226-9511; H ONORAB LE JACK R. MILLE R, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ. and BOYD, S.J. * Upon hearing evidence that appellant Pauline Perales had violated numerous conditi ons of her com munity s upervision together with her plea of true to oneof the allegations ma de by the State , the trial cou rt revoked com munity s upervision and assessed1 Andersv. Ca lifornia, 386 U .S. 7 38, 87 S .Ct. 1 396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1 967). 2 punishment

at two years confinem ent in a state j ail facili tyand a $500 fine. In presenting thisappeal, counsel has filed an Anders 1 brief in support of a m otion to withdraw . Based upon the rationale expressed herein, the m otion to withdraw is granted and the j udgme nt is affirmed.
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel asserts that, in com pliance with Andersv. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), he has dilige ntly reviewed the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible erroror grounds upon which an appeal can be predi cated. Thus, he concl udes the appe al is frivolous and without m erit. In com pliance with High v. S tate, 5 73 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cr.A pp. 197 8), cou nse l h as c andidl y discussed why, under the con troll ing author itie s, there is no error

in the court's ju dgmen t. Counsel has also show n that he sent a copy of the brief to appellant, and informed appellant that, in counsel's view , the appeal is without merit. In addition, counsel has dem onstrated that he notified appellant of her right to review the record and file a pro se brief if she desired to do so. A ppellant filed a pro se brief and the State did not favor u s with a brief. A review of the record show s that on February 13, 1996, appellant plead guilty to the fe lo ny of

fe ns e o f u na ut ho ri ze d u se of a mot orveh ic le an d wa s se nt en ce d t o t wo years confinement

and a $5 00 fine. H owe ver, the sentence w as suspended and appellant was3

pl aced on comm unity super vision for five year s. Three separ ate motions to revo k e com munity

supervision were filed by the State. After th e first, the trial court found app ella n tin violation of the comm unity supervision terms, but continued her on supervision. Following appellant’s plea of true to the alleg ations conta ined i n the State’s second m otion to revoke, the trial co urtextended t he com munity sup erv ision ter m to s ix years. The State’s f

inal motion to revoke com munity s upervision was filed December 8, 1999, and heard by the trial court February 13, 20 02. Appellant plead true to one of the allegations contained i n the m otion to revoke, and follow ing the he aring, thetrial court found ap pe l l an t t o b e i n v i ol at i on of th e c ommu ni ty su pe rv i si on te rms and sentenced her to th e o ri gi na l two ye ar co nf i ne men t t er m. Bythe Anders

brief, counsel presents one arguable issue, to-w it: whether the trial court had authority to extend appellant’s com munity s upervision longer than the original five year term . He argues the c ourt did n ot have such authority, and therefore her com munity

supervision term expired before the hearing on the m otion to revoke, and the State did not dem onstrate the due diligence required to apprehend appellant prior to the expiration of

the com munity s upervision term. H owever, af ter a discussion of

the evidence and legal authorities, counsel concedes that no reversible error is presented. Unauthori zed use of a motor vehicle is a state jail fe lony. T EX . P EN . C ODE A NN . § 31.07 (Vernon 1994). U nder article 42.124

The minim um period of com munity s upervision a judg e ma y impose under thissection is two years . The m axim um period of com munity s upervision a judgem ay im pos e un der this sec tion is five years, except that the j udge m ay extend the m axim um period of com munity supervision under this section to not more than 10 years. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 42.12, §15(b) (Vernon S upp. 2003). Therefore the trial court did have the authority to ex tend the com munity

supervision term from five years to six becaus e it did not exceed the m axim um of ten yearsset forth in the Code. Because appell ant’s com munity s upervision term had not e xpired atthe time of her subsequent arrest and hea ring, due dili gence on the part of the S tate to place appellant under arrest wasnot an is sue. Rodriguez v . Sta te, 804S.W.2d 516 (Tex .Cr.A pp. 1991 ). Byher pro se brief, appellant also argues her two year s entence is excessive. We disagree. Appellant’s conviction for unauthorized use of a m otor vehicle, a state jail fel ony, carries a penalty of 180 days to two years confinemen t. T EX . P EN . C ODE A NN . § 12.35(a) (Vernon 199 4). A t rial cour t isvested w it h a great degr ee of discretion in imposing an appropriate sentence. Jack son v. Sta te, 680 S.W .2d 809, 814 (Tex .Cr.App. 1984) (en banc). Any punishm ent assessed within the range authorized by statute is not cruel and unusual and does not render the se ntence excessive. Nunez v. S tate, 565 S.W.2d 536, 538 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978); Price v. State, 35S.W.3d 136, 144 (Tex.A pp.–W aco 2000, pet. ref’d), citing McNew

v. State, 60 8 S.W.2d 166, 174 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978). Appellate review of arevocation order is limited to dete rm ining wh ether a t rial court abused its discretion. Cardona v. S tate, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex.Cr.A pp. 1984). In a5

proceeding to revoke com munity s upervision, the burden of proof is on the State to show by a pr eponderance of the evidence that the probationer has violated a condition of com munity

supervisi on as a llege d in the mo tion to revoke. Cobb v. State, 851 S .W .2d 871, 873 (Tex.C r.App. 1993). If t he State fails to m eet its burden of proof, the trial co urt abuses its discretion in revoking comm unity supervision. Cardona , 665 S.W.2d at 494. In determ ining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a rev ocation, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Jones v. State, 589 S .W .2d 419, 421 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979). Although one sufficient ground for revocat ion supports the trial court’ s order, Moorev. State, 60 5 S.W.2d 924, 9 26 (Tex .Cr.A pp. 198 0), a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support the trial court’s revocation order. M oses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979).
A written stipulation of evidence was signed by appellant. She entered a plea of true to o ne of th e alle gat io ns contained in the State ’s m otion to revoke. The trial cou rt found that appel la nt’s plea of true w as freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made. In addition to the plea of true to her fail ure to pay court costs an d fines, evi dence was also presented that she failed to report to her com munity s upervision officer, failed to re port a change of

address, and failed to com plete comm unity service. Based on the r ecord before thisCourt, we find the trial court acted within its discretion in revoking app ellant ’s com munity s upervision.6

We have also m ade an independentexam ination of the entire record to determ ine whether there ar e any arguabl e grounds which might su pport the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 34 6, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); S tafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Cr.App. 199 1). W e have found no nonfrivolous issues and agree with counsel that the appeal i s without merit and is, ther efore, fri volous. Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974); La cyv. State, 47 7 S.W.2d 577, 57 8 (Tex .Cr.A pp. 1972 ). Accordingl y, counsel's m otion to withdraw is hereby granted and the j udgme nt of the trial court is affirmed. Don H. Rea vis Justice Do not publish.7