### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 07 -0 00 98 -C R

______________________________ DEMETRIUS RAMON AKKARD, A ppellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 102nd Judi cial District Court

Bow ie County , Texas Trial Court No. 06F 0483-102

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Me mor and

um O pin ion

by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr iss2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Demetr ius Ramon Akkard wa s convicted J anuar y 11, 2007, of t wo counts of possession of a contr olled substance a

nd place d on community

supervision. See T EX . H EA L TH & S AF ETY C ODE ANN . § 48 1. 11 5 ( Ve rn on 20 03 ). On June 14 , 2 00 7, the tr ia l c ourt re vo ke d h is c omm

un ity supervision. Akkar d appea ls that revocation. Ak ka rd ple d " tr ue " to f our o f t he a lle g a tio ns c on ta ine d in the State ' s mot io n to revo ke his
c omm un ity su pe rv isi on . T he tr ia l c ourt

the n re vo ke d his c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on and se nte nc e d h im to two y ear s' imprisonment in a state-jail fa cility o n eac h count, with the sentenc es to run
concur rently . Akkar d was repr esente d by the same appointed counsel at his revoc ation hear ing a nd on this appeal ther efr om. Appellate counsel filed a brief D ece mber 5, 2007, unde r the mandate of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ex parte Se nna , 606 S.W .2d 329, 330 (Tex. Crim. Ap p . 1 9 8 0), and ha s
acc ording ly also filed a motion to withdraw. Counsel se nt Akkard a copy of the brie f and a dvised him by letter that he believes there are no arguable contentions of error. He also informed Akka rd of his rig ht to revie w t he record and fil e a pro se response. Akka rd has not filed a

response , nor has he re quested a

n extension of tim e in which to file suc h a re sponse. Counsel has filed a br ief whic h discusses the re cord a nd revie ws the proc eeding s. Counsel has, thus, provided a

profe ssional evaluation of the rec ord demonst ra t i n g why , in effe ct, there are
n o ar g u a b l e g r o u n d s t o b e a dv an c e d , a s r e qu i r e d b y Hi gh v . S tate , 5 73 S.W. 2d

80 7, 81 2 ( Te x. Cr im.Since we ag ree this c ase prese nts no reve rsible err or, we also, in a ccor dance with An de rs , 1 g ra nt c ouns e l' s r e qu e st t o w ith dr aw f ro m f ur the r r e pr e se ntatio n o f A kk ard in t his c a se . N o s ub sti tut e co u n s el wil l be appointed. Should Akkar d wish to seek fur ther re view of this ca se by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either reta in an attorne y

to file a petition f

or discre tionary

revie w or Akka rd must f ile a pro se petition f

or discre tionary

revie w. Any

petition for discre tionary revie w must be filed within thirty d ay s fr o m t h e date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for re he ari ng that wa s o ve rr

ule d b y thi s Co ur t. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.2. Any petition for discre tionary revie w m ust be filed with this Court, afte r which it will be forwa rded to the Te x as Court of Criminal Appea ls along with the rest of the filings in this case
. See T EX . R. A PP . P
. 68.3. Any petition for discretionar

y revie w should comply

with the require men t s o f Rule 68.4 of the Te x as Rules of Appellate Proc edure
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.4. 3 App. [P anel Op.] 1978). Se e als o Sta ffo rd v . Stat e , 813 S.W .2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 91 ). Couns e l c on c lud e d f ro m hi s r e vie w o f t

he re c or d th e re is n o a

rgua ble po int of e rr or to support the appe al. Counsel further

states in the brief

that Akkar d fre ely and voluntarily enter ed his pleas of

" tr ue " to t he a lle g a tio ns c on ta ine d in the mot ion

to r e vo ke and

that th ere is lega lly

and fa c tua lly sufficie nt evidence to support the trial court' s revoc ation. Counsel's statements are supported by the
rec ord. We have r eviewe d the re cord a nd find the evide nce suf

ficient to supp o rt t h e judg ment of
revoc ation. Ba sed on our review of the record of this procee ding, w e also a g ree with counsel there
are no arguable points of er ror in this case
. 1A plea of "tr ue" to even o n e al l ega tion is sufficient to support a judg ment revoking 2 community

supervision. Col e v . S

tate , 5 78 S.W. 2d 12 7, 12 8 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 79 ); Le wis v . S tate , 19 5 S.W.3 d 205 , 209 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 20 06 , p e t. d e nie d) ; se e Mo se s v . S tate , 590 S.W .2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [ Panel Op.] 1979).
4 We do note, howeve r, that the trial c ourt' s judgme nt in this case indicates Akka rd pled " true" to all ten of the alleg ations contained in the State' s motion to revoke
. Our revie w of the rec ord shows that Akkar d pled " true" to four of those a lleg ations, and either did not answer the rest or ple d "not true." 2 This Court has t he authority to ref orm the judg ment to make the r ecor d speak the truth when the matter ha s been c alled to our attention by any source . F

r e n c h v . Stat e , 830 S.W
. 2 d 6 0 7 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1992). I n As be rry v . S tate , 813 S.W .2d 526 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet
. re f'd ), the court noted that the authority of t he appe llate cour t to refor m incorre ct judg ments is not dependent
on re qu e st o f a

ny pa rt y ; th e app ell a te c ourt

may a c t su a sp on te . T he Te xas R

ule s o f A pp e llate Procedur e provide direc t authority for this Court to modify the judg ment of the trial c ourt. T EX . R. A PP . P. 43.2. There fore , we he reby

ref orm the judg ment to indicate on ly the four a lleg ations to which Ak ka rd did ple a d tr ue : ( 1) the of

fe ns e of fa ilure to i de nti fy

on or a bo ut Apr il 22 , 20 07 , in

B ow ie County , T e xas; (2 ) t

he of fe ns e of e va din g arr e st o n o r ab ou t Apr il 25, 20 07 , in Bo wi e Cou nty , T e xas; (3) f ailure to re port to the community supervision office r on a mont hly basis or as otherwise dire cted by the supervising office r in cha rge o f t h e case , to-wit: failed to re port as dire cted on Ma rch 15,5

2 0 0 7 ; an d (4 ) f ai l edt o ab s t ai nf

r o m t h e u s e o f n ar co t i c o r h ab i t -f o rm i n g dru gs wi t h o u ta d o ct o r's pr e sc ri pti on , to -w it: te ste d po sit ive fo r c ann a bin oid s on

F e br ua ry 15 , 2 00 7, and

g a ve a dmi ssi on

to
use. As re fo rm e d, we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt .

J o s h R
. M o r

r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: Fe bruar y 12, 2008 Date D ecide d: Fe bruar y 15, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh