NO. 07-02-0090 -CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L C OCTOBER 7, 2002

______________________________ JACK A. SM ITH, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 64 TH DISTRI CT COURT OF HALE COUNT Y; NO. A13501-9908; H ONORAB LE JACK R. MILLE R, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.
Pursuant to a pleaof g uilty , ap pella nt J ack A. Sm ith w

as conv icte d of

driv ing while intoxicated, th ir d o r mor e, en ha nc ed , a nd pu ni sh ment wa s a ssess ed at te n years confinement

and a $1,000 fine. However, the period of confinem ent was suspended and appellant was place d on comm unity super vision for five year s. Upon the State’s application, com munity s upervision was revoked for violations of the terms

and conditions1 Andersv. Ca lifornia, 386 U .S. 7 38, 87 S .Ct. 1 396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1 967). 2 thereof, and the original punishment of ten years confinem ent was imposed. 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 sup por

t of hismoti on to wit hd ra w, counsel has certified 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 m eritorious ground
on which an appeal can be predicated. Thus, he concludes the ap peal is f rivolous and without me rit. In com pliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 81 3 (Tex .Cr.A pp. 1978 ), counsel hascan didly

discussed why, under the con troll ing author itie s, the re isno e rro r in the court's j udgme nt. 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 m erit. In addi tio n, counsel has dem onstrated that he notified appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. Appellant did not file a pro se brief and the State did not favor us w ith a brief.
On March 13, 2000, appellant was convicted of driving while intoxicated, third or
m ore, enh anced, and pun ishm ent w as ass essed a t ten years confinemen t and a $1,000 fine, suspended for five years. On May 30, 2001, the State filed an application to revoke3

com munity

supervision alleging that appell ant had violated the c onditions thereof by failing to (1) report as directed for the m onths of Marc h, April, and May 2001; (2) p aycourt costs for the m onths of April and May 2001; (3) perfor m comm unity service; (4) attend and
com plete a com munity correction program; and (5) attend Alcoholics Anonym ous. At the hearing on the State’s application, appellant pled true and after hearing evidence of the alleged violations, the trial court revoked com munity s upervision and imposed the o riginal sentence. In addition, there had been a prior m otion to revoke filed, to which ap pella nt also pled true, at which tim e the com munity s upervision was continued until such tim e as theStatefile them otio n torevokew hich is t he s ubj ect of t his a ppe al. Appellate review of a revocation order is limited to determ ining whether the trial court abused its discretion. Cardona v. S tate, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex .Cr.A pp. 1984 ); Jackson v. State, 64 5 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex.Cr.App. 1983). In a revocation proceeding, the S tate mu st prove by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant violated a condition of com munity s upervision as alleged in the m otion to revoke. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex.C r.App. 1993). If t he State fails to me et its burden of proof, the trial court abuses its discretion in revoking com munity s upervision. Cardona , 665 S.W.2d at 494. In determ ining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a revocation, w e view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. Jones v. State, 589 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Te x. Cr. Ap p. 1 979 ). M ore ove r, when m oretha n on e vio latio n isfound by the trial court, the revocati on order shal l be affi rmed if one suffici ent ground supp orts it. Moore v.4

State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980); McCo llum v. State, 784 S.W.2d 702, 704- 05 (Tex. App.-- Houston [14t h Dist.] 1990, p et. ref ’d). H ere, theplea of tru e to th e allegations in the motion to revoke along with the ev idence stipulations entered into at the hearing ensure no potential abuse of discretion . Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Cr.Ap p. 1979)

. By the Anders

brief, co unsel con cedes t he recor d does not reveal any

potent ially arg uab le issues. After our own independent exam ination of the entire record to determ ine whether there are any other arguable groundswhic h m ight supp ortthis appeal, we agree. SeePens on v. O hio, 488 U .S. 7 5, 109 S .Ct. 3 46, 102 L.Ed. 2d 300 (1 988). W e have found
no nonfrivolous issues and ag ree with counsel that the appeal is without merit and i s, therefore, frivolous. Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974); Lacy v. State, 477 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Cr.App. 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.