Opinion filed Dec ember 30, 20 09



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

____________ 

### No. 1 1- 09 -0 02 16 -CR

____ ____ __ CL ARENC E ED WAR

D WE AV ER, Ap pellant V. STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee
On App eal from the 413th Distric t Court Johns on Coun ty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 40449

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Th is i s an a

pp e a l f ro m a jud g me nt r e vo kin g c omm un ity su pe rv isi on . We dis mis s. The trial c ourt orig inally convicted Clarenc e Edwar d Weaver , upon his plea of guilty , of theft and asse ssed hi s punishment at confinement in a st ate jail fac ility for two y ear s. Pursuant to the plea barg ain ag ree ment, the impo sition of the sentence was suspende d, and appe llant was plac ed on community

supervision for f

ive y ear s. At th e h ea ri n g on the State’s motion to revoke, a ppellant
e nte re d p le a s o f t

ru e to t he a lle g a tions th at he had vio late d th e te rm s a

nd c on dit ion s o f h is community

supervision. The tr i al co u rt found the a lleg ations to be true, r evoked a ppellant’s2

c omm un ity su pe rv isi on , a

nd imp os e d a

se nte nc e of

c on fi ne me nt f

or tw e nty -f our m on ths in a

state j a i l f a c i l i t y. Appellant’s c ourt -ap p o i n t edco u n s el h as fi l eda m o t i o nt o wi th dra w. T h e m o t i o ni s s upported by a br ie f i n w hic h c ouns e l pr of e ssi on a lly and

c on sc ie nti ou sly

e xami ne s th e re c or d a

nd a pp lic a ble law and states that he ha s conclude d that the appe al is frivolous. Counsel presents thre e potential points of error

. First, co u n sel examines whether appellant wa s proper ly

admonished as to the r ang e of po ssi ble punis hme nt. As counse l no te s, a pp e lla nt w a s p ro pe rl y

a dmo nis he d w he n h e e nte re d h is
or ig ina l g uil ty

ple a , a nd fu rt he r a dmo nis hme nt at th e re vo c a tio n h e ari ngwa s no t re qu ir e d. Th e fi rs t potential point is overruled. Second, counse l considers whe ther the tria l court abused its discretion by finding the alleg ations to be true. As c ounsel notes, a plea of true a lone is sufficient to support the tria l court’s deter mination to revoke. Mo se s v . S tate , 5 90 S.W. 2d

46 9, 47 0 ( Te x. Cr im

. App. 19 79 ); Cole v. Sta te , 578 S.W .2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). The sec ond potential point is overruled. Third, counse l review s the puni shment assessed to determine if the tr ial court e rre d. Counsel observe s that the punishment assessed wa s within the rang e for the offen s e o f t h ef

t as define d by T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 3 1

. 0 3 (e )( 4 )( A) (V ern o n S u p p . 2 0 0 9 ). A p en al t y

as s es s edwi t h i nt h e r an ge of punishment established by the leg islature will not be disturbed on appe al. J ac k so n v. Sta te , 680 S.W. 2d 80 9, 81 4 ( Te x. Cr im. App . 1 98 4) ; Brad fie ld v . S

tate , 4 2 S. W. 3 d

3 5 0 , 3 5 4 ( T e x. App.—Eastland 2001, pe t. ref’ d). The third pote ntial point is overr uled. Couns e l ha s p ro vid e d a

pp e lla nt wi th a c op y of

the br ie f a

nd a dv ise d a pp e lla nt o f h is r ig ht t o re vie w the re c or d a

nd fi le a re sp on se to c ouns e l’ s b ri e f. A r e sp on se ha s n ot b e e n f ile d. Court
appointed counse l has complied with the re quirements of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Sc hulman , 252 S.W. 3d 40 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08 ); Sta ffo rd v . S tate , 8 1 3 S. W. 2 d

5 0 3 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 ); Hi

gh v. S tate , 5 73 S.W. 2d

80 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tate , 516 S.W. 2d 68 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 74 ); Ga ino us v . S tate , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Ea de n v . S

tate , 161 S.W .3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.)

. Following the proc edure s outlined in An de rs , we have independently revie wed the rec ord,
and we a g re e that th e a

pp e a l is wi tho ut me ri t. We no te that c ouns e l ha s th e re sp on sib ili ty to a dv ise3

a pp e lla nt t hat he may

fi le a pe tit ion fo r d isc re tio na

ry re vie w b y

the Te xas C ourt

of Cr imi na l App e a ls. Ex parte Owens , 206 S.W .3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). L ikewise, thi s court a dvises appellant that he may

file a pe tition for d i s cretionary revie w pursuant to T EX . R. A PP . P. 66. Blac k v . S tate , 217 S.W .3d 687 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, no pet.)

. The motion to withdraw is g rante d, and the a ppeal is dismissed.

PER C URI AM

Dec ember

30, 2009 Do not publish. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S t r an g e , J.