NO. 07-05-0036-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D AUGUST 30, 2005

______________________________ JULIO HERNANDEZ, JR., APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLE E

_________________________________ FROM THE 222ND DISTRICT COURT OF DE AF SMITH COUNTY; NO. CR-04 H-113; HO NORABLE ROLAND SAUL, JU DGE

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORAND UM OPINION Pursuantto a plea agreement, appellant Julio Hernan dez, Jr. was convicted of possession of marihuana and sentenced to two years confinement and a $1,500 fine. The confinementwas suspended in favor of four years

of commun ity super

vision. After a hearing on the S tate’s mo tion to re voke, thetr ial cour t r evoked a ppellan t’s commun ity1 Anders v. Califor nia, 386U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18L.Ed.2d 493 (196 7). 2 supervision and asse ssed the original punishm ent. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders 1 brief

in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counse l’s motion and affirm. In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has diligently reviewed the record and, in his opin ion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18L.Ed.2d 493 (196 7); Monroe v. State, 671 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex.Ap p.--Sa n Antonio 1984, no pet.). Thus, he concludes the appe al is fri volous. In complia nce with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no er ror in thecourt's j udgment. Counsel has also shown th at he sen t a c opy of the brief to appellant and informed appellant that, in counsel's view, the appeal is without merit. In addition, counsel has demonstrated that he notified appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se responseif he de sired to do so. Appellant did not file a response . Neithe r did theState favor us wit h a brief

. T he State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision alleging that on November

10, 2004, appellant

hit his ex-girl friend wi th his fi st causin g her bod ily inju ry and violati ng the te rms of a pr otective order. The State further alleged that a few dayslater on November 14, 2004, appellant struck his ex-girlfriend with a tire iron also causing bodily injury. At the revocation hearing, appellant pled not true to the viol ations, and after hearing3

the evidence, the court concluded he had violated the terms of community supervision. The court immediately revoked the order of community supervision and i mposed the original sentenceof two ye ars confi nement. Byhis Anders

brief, co unsel do es not ad vance any arguable grounds for appeal. App ellate revie w o f a rev oca tion o rde r is lim ited to dete rm in ing w hether the trial court abused it s di scret ion. Cardona v. Stat e, 665 S.W.2d 492, 4 93 (Tex .Cr. App. 1984); Jackso n v. Stat e, 645 S.W .2d 30 3, 305 (Tex.C r.App . 1983 ). In a revocation pro ceeding , the State mustprove by

a prepon derance of the evi dence tha t appell ant viol ate d a con dition of community

supervis ion. C obb v. State, 851 S.W.2 d 871, 87 4 (Tex.C r.App. 19 93). One sufficientground for revocation will support the trial court’s order. Moore v. St ate, 605 S.W.2d 92 4, 926 (T ex.Cr.Ap p. 1980). Here , appe llant’s ex-girlfriend testified to appellant’s vio lent behavior, and several photographs were adm itted as evidence of her in juries. The trial judge was the exclusive judge of the credibility of the witnessand the weight to be give n to her testimony. Mattias v. State, 731 S.W.2d 936, 940 (Tex.Cr.App. 1987). Based on the evide nce presented, we do not find the court’s conclusion that appellant committed the alleged violations to be an abuse of discretion. We have also made an independent examination of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support t his appe al. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d4

503, 511 (Tex .Cr.App. 1 991). We have found no such grounds and agree with co unsel that the appeal is frivolous. Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974); Lacyv. State, 477 S.W.2 d 577, 57 8 (Tex.C r.App. 19 72). Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is hereby granted a nd the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Don H. Reavis Justice Do not publish.