NO. 07-04-0292-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D DECEMBER 16, 2004

______________________________ IN THE MA

TTER OF L . J. G.

_________________________________ FROM THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUB BOCK COUNTY; NO. 2004- 760,966; HONORAB LE MARK C. HALL, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPBELL , JJ.
MEMORAND UM OPINION Appellant

L. J. G. appeals the revoca tio n of his community supervision and commitmen t to the T exas Yo uth Commi ssion. We will affirm.
On February

4, 2004 the Statefiled a petition seeking to have appellant adjudicated
a delinquent

child under Chapter 51 of the Texas Family Code. It alleged appellant, wh o was 16 years old at

the tim e, committed burglary of a habitation on December 21, 2003. Ata hearing on February 24, 2004, while represented by appointed counsel, appell an t waived his righ ts to a tri al, to confrontation of witnesses and against self-incrimination, and1 Appellant admitted that for four days he stayed with his girlfriend a nd her mother rather than with his father as required by the terms of his probation. The same conduct was the basis of the State’s allegations that appellant violated the curfew provisions of h is probation. -2- judiciallyconfessed to burglary of a habitation and signe d a written stipulation of evidence. The court found the State’s allegation to be true and that a ppellant was a child who had engaged in delinquen t conduct . I n a separate order rendered the same day it placed appella nt on intensive s upervisi on proba tion.
On April 5 , 2004, th e State fi led an a pplicati on to mod ify the co urt’s ori g inal disposition. See Tex . Fam. Code Ann. § 54.05 (Vernon 2002). It allege d the violation of four terms and conditions of appellant’s probation and sought an order committing him to the Texas Youth Commission until his 2 1stbirthday. The court held a he aring on the State’s application April 30, 2004. At that hea ring app ellant plead t rue to two of the four alleged violations. 1 The plea of true w as s upported by testim ony of hi s probati on office r, Tom Gonza les. Appellant

testified that he and his father were living i n a motel at the time. He said his father would often leave him there alone for several days at a time and he did not feel safe atthe motel because of drug use and prostitution in the a rea. He went to live with his girlfri end to get away from the motel. He also testified he called his probation officer the dayhe moved but the officer was on vacation. App ellantleft a message for the probation officer fo ur days l ater provi ding inf ormation on where

he was l iving.-3-

The probation officer

confirmed speaking with appellant the day h e moved out of the motel, and that he was on vacation that week, but offered a different account of the conversation. He testified appellant said his father was kicking him outof the mo tel room. The pr oba tion officer instructed appellant to return to the motel and that another officer would come visit with him. When the other officer arrived, neither appel lant nor his father were pres ent.
The trial court found appellant violated the two con ditions of probation to which he plead true. In a separate order rendered the same day, the court com mitted ap pellant to the custody of the Texas You th Commissi on. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.05(f) (Vernon 2002). Appell ant’s tri al couns el timel y filed a notice of appeal . The tr ial c ourt appointed
newcounsel to represent appellant on appeal. Thatcounsel has filed a brief stating he has carefullyreviewed the record in this case and concl udes there is no reversible error and the appeal is frivo lous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct.1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (196 7); In re D.A. S , 973 S.W.2d 296 (Tex. 1998) (applying Anders procedures to appea ls from juvenile de linquen cy adjudi cations).
The brief presents a single potential issue concerni ng whether the trial court abused its discretion in committing appellant to the Texas Youth Commission. The brief discu sses the facts and procedural history of the case. Based on counsel’s review he concludes the record does not show an abus e of discretion by the trial court. Counsel also has filed a motion to withdraw

and by l etter info rmed appe llant of his righ ts to review t he trial record and to file apro se br ief. Johnson v. State , 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex.App.–Waco 1994, pet. ref’d). By letter dated September 28, 2004, this Court also notified appellant and his-4-

father of appel lant’s ri ght to sub mit a response to the Anders brief and motion to withdraw filed by his counsel, granting him until October 28, 2004, to do so. A ppellant has not filed a brief or other response. Nor has the State filed a brief in this appeal.
In conformity with the standards set out by the United States Supreme Court we will notrule on t he motion to withdraw until we have ind ependently examined the record. Nichols v. S tate , 9 54 S.W.2d 83, 86 (T ex.App.–San Anto nio 1997 , no pet.) . If this court determines the appeal has merit, we will remand it to the trial court for appointment of new counsel. See Staff

ord v. Sta te , 813 S.W. 2d 503, 5 11 (Tex. Crim.App . 1991). Appella te review of a revocation order is limited to determining whether the trial co urt abused its disc retion. Cardona v. State , 665 S.W. 2d 492, 4 93 (Tex. Crim.App . 1984); In re T.R.S. , 115 S.W.3d 318, 320 (Tex.App.–Texarkana 2003, no pet.) (applica tion of s tandard to juv enile proceeding). The Legislature has vested juvenile courts with great discretion in determining the suitable disposition of childr en found to have engaged in delinq uent conduct. This is especially so regar ding hearing s to modi fy dispos ition. In re J.M. , 25 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Tex.App.–Fort Worth 2000, no pet.). The State’s burden of proof in a probation revocation hearing is a preponderance of the evid ence. In re T.R. S ., 115 S.W.3d at320. Th e trial court abus es its di scretion in revoki ng commun ity supervision if the State fails to meet i ts burden of proof. Id. The trial judge is the soletrier of f act. Taylor

v. State , 604 S.W.2d 175, 179 (Tex.Crim.App. 198 0). A defend ant’s plea of true to an alleged violation is suffi cient tosupport t he revoca tion. Moses v. State , 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim.App. 1979); In re K.B. , 106 S.W.3d 913, 915 (Tex.App.–Dallas 2003 , no pet.). When-5-

more than one violation is alleged, proof of any one of them is sufficient to support the revocatio n. Moore v. State , 605 S.W. 2d 924, 9 26 (Tex. Crim.App . 1980). Appellant’s pleas of

true to two alleged violati ons of the conditi ons of hi s communi ty supervision, and evi dence p resented at the hearing, are amply sufficient to support the court’s order. Appellant’s explanation of the reason he violated the probation requirement thathe reside with his father wascontroverted by evidence appellant failed to conve ythose circumstances to his p robation officer b efore therevocati on heari ng. The court could also consid er t he lack of adequate supervision from appellant’s father and history of referrals to the juven ile prob ation de partment. In re J.M. , 25 S.W.3d at 367 (rec ogni zing court’s wide di scretion in heari ngs to mod ify disp osition)

. Our review convinces us that appellate counsel conducted a complete review of the record and his conclus ion it do es not sh ow an ab use of di scretion is correc t. We have also made an indepen dent exa mination of the ent ire recor d to dete rmine whe ther thereare any arguable grounds which mi ght suppo rt the app eal. See Staff ord , 813 S.W.2d at 511. We agree it prese nts no mer itoriousgrounds for review. We grantcounsel ’s motion to withdraw and affi rm the judg ment of th e trial court.

James T. Campbell Justice