* John T. Boyd, Chief Justi ce (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, si tti ng by assignment. NO. 07- 02- 0225- CR IN THE COURT OF APP EALS FOR TH E SEVENTH D ISTR ICTOF TEX AS AT AM ARILLO PANE L E NOVE MBE R 22, 2002

____________

____________

______ ENRIQUE JAVIER MA RTINEZ, APPELLANT V. THE STAT E OF TEX AS, APPEL LEE

____________

____________

_________ FROM THE 242N D DISTR ICT COU RT OF HALE COUN TY; NO. B1 398 2- 010 2; HONORABL E ED SELF , JU DGE

____________

____________

_______ Befo re QUINN and REAVIS, JJ. and BOYD, S. J. * Pursuantto a pl ea ofgu ilty, appellant E nrique Ja vier Ma rtinez was conv icted of fo rgery and punishment was assess ed at two year s confinement and a $750 fi ne. How ever, t he peri od of confi nement was suspended an d appel la nt was pl aced on communitysupervi sion for two years. Upon the State’s appli cation, community supervi sion was revoked for vi ol ati ons1 And ers v . California, 386 U .S. 7 38, 87 S.C t. 1396 , 18 L.E d.2d 4 93 (196 7). 

### 2 of the terms and condi ti ons there of and t he ori gi nal puni shment of two year s confi nement was impo sed. In presenti ng thi s appeal , counsel has fi le d an And ers 1 bri ef i n support of a moti on to wi thdraw. Based upon the rati onal e expressed herei n, the mot io n to wi thdraw i s granted and the judgment i s affirmed. In support of hi s motion to wi thdraw, counsel has certi fied t hat, i n compli ance with And ers v. Cal if

orni a, 386 U.S. 73 8, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 ( 1967), he has dilig en tlyrevi ewed the record and, i n hi s opi ni on, the record refl ects no meri tori ous ground on which an appeal can be predicated. Thus, h e con cl udes the appe al i s fri volou s and wit houtmeri t. In compli ance wi th Hi gh v. State, 573 S.W .2d 807, 813 (Tex.C r.Ap p. 197 8), counsel has ca nd idly di scussed why, und er thecontrol li ng authorit ie s, there i s no error i n the co urt 's judgment. Counsel has al so shown that hesent a copy of the bri ef to ap pel la nt, and in formed ap pe llan t t ha t, in co un s el's vie w, th e a pp ea l is wit hout mer it . In ad di ti on, counsel has demonstra ted that he noti fi ed appel la nt of hi s ri ght to r eviewthe record and fi lea pr o se bri ef. Although appel lant fi le d a le tter bri ef, he d oes not rai se any meri tori ous i ssues for appeal as req uire d b y T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.1, and as such, i t wi llnot be consi dered h ere. The State did not favor us wi th a bri ef. A revi ew of the record shows that on Jul y 16 , 2001, appel la nt pl ed gui lty to forg ery and was pl aced on communi tysupervi sion for t wo yea rs and assessed a $ 750 fine. Upon the Sta te’s moti on to revoke communi tysupervi sion al le gi ng threeviol ati ons of the terms and

### 3

condi ti ons there of, thetri al court condu cted a hear in g on Apri l 29, 2002. Appel la ntentered a plea oftru e t o t he alleg at ion s m ad e b y the State an d ev ide nc e w as pr es en te d a s we ll. Based on app ellant’s pl ea of true to th e allegations and the ev idence prese nted, the trial court revoked community super visi on and i mposed the orig in al sente nce of two yea rs confi nement and a $750 fine. Appell ate revi ew of a revocati on orde r i s li mited to determi ni ng whether the trial court abused i ts di scre ti on. Cardonav. Sta te, 665 S.W .2d 49 2, 493 (Tex.C r.Ap p. 198 4); Jackson v. State, 645 S.W .2d 303, 305 (Tex .Cr.App. 1 983). In a revocati on proceed in g , the S tate mustprove b y a prep onderan ce of the e viden ce that app el la nt vi ol ated a condi ti on of communitysupervi sion as al le ged i n the moti on to re voke. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W .2d 871, 874 (Tex .Cr.App. 1993). If th e State fai ls to meeti ts burden of proof, th e tri al court ab uses its discreti on in r

evoking community

supervisi on. Cardona , 665 S.W.2d a t 494. In determi ni ng the suffi ciency of the evide nce to sustai n a revocati on, we vi ew th e e v ide nc e in the l i ght mo st favorabl e to thetri al court’ s rul in g. Jones v. State, 589 S.W .2d 419, 421 (Tex.Cr .App. 1979). Alth ough one suffici ent ground for r evocati on supp orts th e trial court’s order, Mo ore v. State, 605 S.W .2d 924, 926 (Tex .Cr.App. 1 980), a pl ea of true standi ng al one is suffi cient

to suppor

t the t ri al court’ s revocati on orde r. Moses v. State, 590 S.W .2d 469, 470 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979). Bythe And ers bri ef, counsel argues t he evid ence was l egal ly and factual ly

i nsuffi cient for the tri al court t o fi nd ap pell ant viol ated the terms and conditi ons of his community

### 4

supervi sion. Alth ough thi s is ar gued as a l egal and factua l suffi ciency poi nt, we ar

e gui ded bytheabu se of di screti on standard menti oned above. Appell ant si gned a wr itten sti pul ati on of evid ence whi ch acknowl edged that the acts and all egati ons in the application to revoke probat io n were true and entered a plea of true to the al legati ons cont ained in the S tate’s moti on to revoke. Al so, t he t ri al co urt fo un d t ha t a pp ellan t’s plea oftru e w as fre ely, vo lun ta rily, kn ow ing ly, a nd int ellig en tly made. In addi ti on, appel la nt’s communi tysupervi sion offi certesti fi ed he fai le d to report several ti mes and evi dence was al so presen te d that appel la ntwas delinquent in payme nt of his fe es an d behind in his ho urs of community ser

vice, an d a pp ella nt te s tif ied to th es e m at te rs as we ll. Based on the record befo re t hi s Cour t, we fi nd the trial court acte d within its discre tion in revoking ap pellant’s community super visi on.

We have al so made an i ndependent exami nati on of th e enti re record to determi ne whether th er e a re an y ot he r a rg ua ble gr ou nd s wh ich mig ht su pp or t t his ap pe al. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 ( 1988). W e have found no nonfrivolou s issues and agree wit h counsel that t he appeali s with out mer it and i s, therefore, fri volou s. Curriev. State, 51 6 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Cr.App. 197 4); La cy v. State, 477 S.W .2d 577, 578 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972). A cc ord ing ly, counsel's moti on to wit hdraw i s hereby granted and thej udgment of the tri al court is affi rmed.

### 5 Do n H . R ea v is Just i ce Do not publi sh.