1 T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.4. NO. 07-02-0062 -CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L D APRIL 23, 2003

______________________________ JAMES RA

Y BARROW, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 242 ND DISTRICT COURT OF SW ISHER COUNTY; NO. B3232-99-07-CR ; HONORA BLE EDSELF, JU DGE

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPB ELL, JJ.
MEM ORANDU M OPIN ION 1 Appellant Jam es Ray

Barrow appeals the revocation of his com munity s upervision. W e affirm therevocation.2

On his plea of guilty, appellant was convicted on M ay 23, 2000, of the offense of delivery of coca ine. In a cco rda ncew ith h is plea agreement, he wassentenced by the trial court to 1 0 ye arscon fin e ment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Departm ent of Criminal Justice and a $1,000 fine , the trial court suspending the period of confinem ent and placing appellant on comm unity supervision for ten years.
The State filed a m otion to revoke appellant’s com munity s upervision on Novem ber 3, 2001, alleging violati on of six of its conditions. The violations all eged included failing to report, failing to maintain em ployment, failing to pay required fees and costs, failing to perform com munity s ervice, failing to subm it to drug and alcohol testing, and failing to pay a “C ri me Stoppers” fee. A t a January 9, 2002, hearing on the m otion, appellant pled true to eac h of

thesix violations. On being questioned by the trial court, appellant stated that he understood the potential consequences of h is plea and that he had not been prom ised anything in exchange for his plea. A written stipulation of evidence signed and swo rn to byappellant, stating that he had com mitted each of the violations alleged by the State, w as admitted in evid ence. The appel lant al so took the stand and test ifie d at the heari ng. He asked the cou rt to co ntin ue h is com munity s upervision, adding participation i n a restitution center as a condition of it.
The State presented the testi mony of appel lant ’s community supe rvis ion o ffic er. At the con clu sion of the h earing, the trial court found each of the State’s allegations true, revoked appellant’s com munity s upervision, and sentenced him to 10 yearsconfinemen t3

in theIns titu tion al D ivis ion o f th e Te xa s D epa rtm ent of C rim inal J ust ice. Ap pella nt t im ely filed a no ticeof a ppe al. Appella nt’s counsel has filed a brief stating that he has carefullyexam ined the record an d r es ea rc he d t he la w, and is u nab le tofind a m eritorio us e rro r toarg ue to th is Court. The brief thoroughly discusses the evidence presented at the hearing on the m otion to revoke. Counsel concludes that there is no reversible erro r in this case, and that the appeal is frivolous. See And er s v. Cal ifo rn ia , 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.C t.1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Nevertheless, citing Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim. App. 1974), counsel presents a single point presenting the question w hether the e vidence before the trial cour t w as le gally and factually sufficient to perm it the court to find that appell ant viol ated the terms and conditi ons of his community supervisi on. Counsel al so has filed a motion to w ithdraw and by letter inform ed appellant of his rights to review the trial record and t o file a pro se brief. See Johnson v. State , 885 S.W.2d 641 (Tex.App.--W aco 1994, pet. ref’d) . By letter dated Jul y 9, 2002, this Cou rt also noti fied appellant of his opportunity to sub mit a res ponse to the Anders brief and mot ion to withdraw filed by his counsel, granting him until August 12, 2002 , to do s o. This co urt’s letter also reminded appellant to contact his counse l if he needed to review any part of the appellate record to prepare a response. Appellant has not filed a brief or other response.
In con for m ity w ith t he s tan dar ds s et o ut b y th e Un ited St ate s S upr em e Co urt , we w ill notrule on the m oti on t o w it hdraw until we have independently exam ined the record. Nichol s v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex.App. --San Antonio 1997, no pet. ). If t his court2 In his brief, appellant’s counsel cites the standard set forth in Clewi

s v. State , 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex .Crim .App. 1996) as the standard to be applied to a review of the factual suffici ency of the State’s evidence in support of revocation. Like other courts of app eals who have considered the question, see Becker v. State , 33 S.W.3d 64 (Tex.App.--El Pas o, 2000, no pet. ), we have not applied Cle wis to com munity s upervision revocations. W e note, though, that even und er thatstandard, the trial court’s judgm ent would be sus tained, as it is not so contrary to the overwhelm ing weight of theevid enc e asto b e cle arly wrong and unjust

. Cle wis , 922 S.W.2d at 129. 4 determ ines theapp eal h as m erit , we w ill rem and itto the trial court for appointm entof new counsel. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim .App. 1991). Appellate review of a revocation order is limited to determ ining whether the trial court abused its discretion. Cardona v. Stat e , 665 S.W.2d 492, 49 3 (Tex .Crim .App. 1984); Jacksonv. State , 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex.Crim .App. 1983). The trial court abuses its discretion in revoking comm unity supervision if the State fails to me et its burden of proof. Cardona , 665 S.W.2d at 494.
In a revocation proceeding, the State mus t prove by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant violated a condition of comm unity superv ision as alleged in the mot ion to revoke. Cobb v. Stat e , 851 S.W.2 d 871, 874 (Tex.Crim .App. 1993). The trial judge in such a proceeding is the sole trierof the facts. Taylor v. State , 604 S.W.2d 175, 179 (Tex.Cr im.App . 1980). A defendant ’s plea of true to an alleged violation, standing alone, is sufficient to support the revocation. Moses v. Stat e , 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex.Crim .App. 1979).
In determ ining the sufficiency of the evidence to sus ta in a r ev oc at io n, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. 2 Jones v. St ate , 589 S.W.2d3 Our review is limited, thou gh, t o any issues rel ated to revocati on of appel lant’s com munity

supervision. Tex. CodeCrim. P roc. art. 42.12 §23(b); see Manuel v. State , 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex.Crim. App. 1999). 5 419, 421 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979). Appel lant’s plea s of tru e toall six alleged violations of the conditions of his comm unity super vision and the stipul ation of evi dence am ply support the
cou rt’s j udg m ent

and the re isnot hing in t he r eco rd to su gge st t hat app ell an t wa s incompetent

or that his pleas and stipulation were not m ade knowing ly, volunt arily or intel lige ntly. The reco rd contain s some evidence in mitigati on of some of appellan t’s viola tions, but when, as here, m ore than one violation is all eged, proof of any one of them is sufficient to support the revocat ion. Moorev. State , 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.Crim .App. 1980); Gobell v. State , 528 S.W.2d 223 (Tex.Crim.A pp. 1975); McCollum v. State , 784 S .W.2d 702, 704-05(Tex .App. --Houston [14t h Dist.] 1990, p et. ref 'd).
Ourrev iew

con vin ces us that appellate counsel conducte d a dilige nt an d conscientious review of the record. W e have also m ade an independent exam ination of the ent ire r

eco rd to de ter m ine w het her the re a re a ny a rgu ablegrou nds which m ight support theapp eal. 3 See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. W e agree it p re sents no meritorious grounds for review. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appell ant’s com m unit

y s upe rvis ion. We over rule thepoin t co nsid ered by appell ant’s counsel, grant counsel’s m otion to withdraw and affirm the judgm ent of the trial court.

Jam es T . C am pbe ll Justice6

Do not publish.