NO. 07-01-0438 -CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L D AUGUST 7, 2002

______________________________ COLLIE B. W ILLARD, III, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 14 0TH DIST RICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUN TY; NO. 95-420,722; HON ORABLEJIM B OB DAR NELL, JUD GE

_______________________________ Before BOYD, C.J., and QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.
On original subm ission, w e dism issed app ellant’s ap peal for w ant of j uri sdiction. Byhis motion for rehearing, appellant argues thatunder Feagin v. State, 967 S .W .2d 417 (Tex.Cr.A pp. 1998), we have jurisdicti on to conside r his appeal. W e grant appel lant’s mot ion for rehearing and now wit hd ra w our original opi nion and judgm ent of June 28, 2002, and, in lieu thereof, issue the following opinion.1 The crim inal d ocke t sheet included in the clerk’s record reflects that a ppellant

entered into a plea bargain agreement.

2 Andersv. Ca lifornia, 386 U .S. 7 38, 87 S .Ct. 1 396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1 967). 2 Pursuant to a plea bargain, 1 on Septem ber 30, 1997, appellant Collie B. W illard, III
wasconvicted of possess ion of a controlled substance and punishm entwas as sessed at five yearsconfinemen t, suspended. Upon the State’s seco nd amended motion to revoke appell ant’s com munity s upervision for violations of the conditions thereof, on August 23, 2001, the trial court rev ok ed com munity s upervision and assessed punishm ent at four yearsconfinemen t. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders 2 brie f in support of a motion to withdraw. Base d upon the rationale expressed herein, the mot ion to withdraw is granted and the j udgme nt is affirmed.
In support of his m otion to withdraw , counsel has certified that, in compliance w ith Andersv. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 139 6, 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 pred icate d. Thus, he concludes the appeal is frivolous and without me rit. In com pliance with High v. State, 573S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex .Cr.A pp. 1978 ), counsel has candidly discussed w hy, under the controlling authorities, there is no errorin the court's j udgme nt. Counsel has also show n that he sent a copy of the brief to appellant, and informed appe lla nt that, in counsel's view, the appeal is without m erit. In addition, counsel has dem ons tra ted tha t henot ified app ellan t of hisright to review the record an d3

file a pro se brief. Appellant did notfile a pro se brief and the State did not favor us with a brief.
On Se pte m ber

30, 199 7, a ppe ll ant was co nvicted of possession of a controlled substance and placed on com munity s upervision for five years. Upon the S tate’s second amend ed m otion, on August 23, 2001 , the trial court revoked com munity s upervision for violating the condition that appellant avoid persons and places of disreputable or harmf ul character and assess ed punishment at four years confinem ent. Bythe Anders

brief, co unsel questions w hether ( 1) the condition of com munity supervision that appellant avoid persons or places of disreputable or harm ful character as applied to h im was vague, (2) appellant faced double jeopardy, and (3) appellant received ineffecti ve assistance of counsel. H owever, af ter a rev iewof the evidence and legal authori ties, counsel concedes that t here are no non frivolou s c laim s topre sen t on app eal.
W hen reviewing an order revoking com m unity sup ervision, t he sole qu estion before this Court is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Jackson v. S tate, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex.Cr.App. 1983). In a revocat ion proceedi ng, the State must prove by a preponder ance o f the evi dence that appellant violated a condition of com munity supervi s ion. Cobb v. S tate, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex.Cr.A pp. 1993). One sufficient ground for revocation supports the t rial court’s order. Moore v. S tate, 605 S.W. 2d 924, 926 (Tex .Cr.A pp. 1980 ).4

Atthe hearing on the State’ s m otion to revoke, evidence w as presented that at the ti me appellant was placed on com munity s upervision, the conditions were ex pl ained t o hi m. W hen ask ed t o explain the condition “avoid persons or places of disreputable or harm ful charac

ter,” acom munity s upervision officer testified that persons on com munity supervis ion are
notto a sso ciate w ith p eop le w ho p oss ibly sell drugs or havi ng [sic] parti es, assoc iate in ille gal a ctiv itiesor n ot to goto p lace s th at t her e is an ille ga l activity going on. Testimony of

Officer Koontz take n at a prior hearing on the State’s first am ended motion to re vo ke was i nt ro du ce d a s an exh ib it an d p or ti on s we re read into the record. By the testimony, the State es tablished t hat on August 8, 2000, ap pell ant was at a residence located at 1916 East Auburn Street, w hich was a c rack cocaine distribution locat ion

. According to Officer Koontz’ s testim ony, about a w eek pr ior to Augu st 8, he noticed appellant “hanging around” thatresidence and informed him that he was aware of his past pr ob l ems and that there was a good chance anyone aroun d there was going to be arrested because of com pl aints. F urther, a friend of appellant’s testified that he and appellant drove to 1916 East

Auburn on August 8, and that appellant parked his car in front of the residence.
In ruling to revoke appellant’s com munity superv ision , th e tr ial c our t no ted tha t it was of the opinion that appellant “was w ell aware of what was going on at that facility or5

residence” and thus, the S tate had m et its burden of proof by establishing that appellant had notavoided a place of disreputable or harm ful character. SeeScroggins v. State, 815 S.W.2d 898, 900 (Tex.App.–For t W orth 1991, pet. r ef’d) (uphol ding a tri al court’s revocation order because the evidence es tablished that Scroggins knew he sho uld not associate w ith aco- def end ant becaus e hispro bat ion officer told him toavoid him). We conclude th e t ri al co ur t d i d n ot ab us e i ts di sc re ti on i n r ev ok i ng ap pe l l an t’ s c ommu nit y supervision.
We have also ma de an independent exam ination of the entire record to determ ine whether there are any other arguable grounds w hich might support this appeal. Se e Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct . 346, 102 L.Ed.2 d 300 (1988). W e have found no nonfrivolous issues and agree w ith counsel th at the appe al is withou t merit and is, therefo re, frivolou s. Cu rrie v. S tate, 5 16 S.W.2d 684 (T ex. Cr.Ap p. 1974) ; Lacy v. State, 477 S. W .2d 577, 578 (Tex .Cr.A pp. 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.