NO. 07-01-0082 -CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L A NOVEM BER 29, 2001

______________________________ CHRISTOPHER D. BROWN, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 13 7TH DIST RICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUN TY; NO. 99-431758; HON ORABLECECIL G. PURYEAR, JUD GE

_______________________________ Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ. Upon a plea of guilty, on July 27, 2000, appe llant C hristopher D. Brow n was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, a state jail felony, and punishm ent was assessed at 18 mo nths confinem ent. The trial court suspended th e imposition ofsentence and placed appellant on comm unity super vis io n. Upon the S tate’s m otion to revoke for alleged violations of the terms and conditions of

co mm unity sup ervision, t he trial cour t1 Andersv. Ca lifornia, 386 U .S. 7 38, 87 S .Ct. 1 396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1 967). 2 conducted a hearing. After evidence was presente d, appell ant’s com munity s upervision wasrevoked and the original sentence of 18 m on ths con finement w as impose d. In presenting this appeal , co unsel has f iled an Anders 1 brief in support of a m otion to wit hd ra w. Based upon the rationale expressed herein, the motion to withdraw is granted and the ju dgmen t is affirmed. In support of his m otion to withdraw , counsel has cer tified tha t hehasdilige ntly reviewed the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no revers ible error or grounds upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 ( 1967); Monroe v. State, 671 S .W .2d 583, 585 (Tex.App.--San An ton io 1984, no pet.). Thus, he concludes the appeal is frivolous and without m erit. In compliance with High v. S tate, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cr.A pp. 1978) , counsel has can didly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no errorin the co urt's judgm ent. Co uns el h as also shown that he sent a copy of the brief to appellant, and informed appellant that, in counsel's view, the appeal is w ithout merit. In addition, counsel has dem onstrated that he notified appellant of his right to review the record an d file a pro se brie f if

he desired to do so. A ppellant did not file a pro se brief and the State did not favor us w ith a brief.3

Atthe hearing on the State’smotion to revoke appellant entered a plea of not true to t he allegations and the State presented evidence of the violations. A com munity supervision of

f icer testified that appellant violated the conditions of his comm unity supervision by failing:

C to report for the m onth of Septem ber 2000;
C to provide proof of em ployment;
C to complete Life Skil ls and Employment Education classes;
C to pay court costs for Septem ber 2000;
C to pay com munity s upervision fees for Septem ber 2000;
C to pay restitution for Septem ber 2000;
C to report to th e c omm unity supervision office twice daily when n ot gainfully employed; and
C to pay attorney’sfees for Septem ber 2000. OfficersRobert Garza and M orene Pair of the Texa s Tech Police Departm ent testified that appellant evaded arrest on Septem ber 11, 2000, after an attempted theft was reported on campus. At theconclusion of the evidence the trial court found that appellant had violated numerous

conditions and revoked com munity s upervision. Counsel pre sen ts o ne a rgu ableissue by wh ich he contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking appellant’s comm unity supervision. W hen reviewing an or der revoking com munity s upervision, the sole questi on before this Court is w hether the trial court abused its discr etion. Jackson v. State, 645 S .W.2d 303, 305 (Tex.C r.App. 1983).4

In a revocation proceedi ng, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence tha t appellant violated a condition of comm unity supervision. One sufficient ground for revocation supports the trial court’s order. M oore v. State, 605 S.W. 2d 924, 925 (Tex.Cr.A pp. 1980). Th e evidence pr esented by the State estab lishe d by a preponder ance of the evidence that appellant violated num erous conditions of his com munity s upervision. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking his comm unity supervision and imposing the original sentence of 18 years confinement . We have also ma de an independent exam ination of the entire record to determ ine whether there are any arguable grounds w hich might support the appeal. SeePenson 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. 1991). We have found no such grounds and ag ree with counsel thatthe appeal is without merit and i s, therefore, fr ivolo us. Currie v. State, 516 S .W .2d 684 (Tex .Cr.A pp. 1974 ); Lacy v. State, 47 7 S.W.2d 577, 5 78 (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. Reavis Justice Do not publish.