07-03-0151-CR
MAY 14, 2004
DANIEL ROY SETTLE
THE STATE OF TEXAS

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	Appellant Daniel Roy Settle appeals the revocation of his community supervision.We affirm the revocation. 

	Appellant was indicted on July 15, 1999, for the second degree felony offense ofdelivery of cocaine.  On his plea of guilty, appellant was convicted on December 27, 1999,of that offense. In accordance with his plea agreement, he was sentenced by the trial courtto ten years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of CriminalJustice and a $2,000 fine, restitution, and court costs, the trial court suspending the periodof confinement and placing appellant on community supervision for ten years. 

	The State filed its first motion to revoke appellant's community supervision on May17, 2000, alleging violation of ten of the conditions of his community supervision. Anamended motion filed July 17, 2000 alleged appellant violated fourteen conditions.  Thatmotion was dismissed as part of a July 26, 2000, agreed order modifying the terms andconditions of appellant's community supervision, requiring appellant to reside at acommunity corrections facility and make restitution for bad checks.  That order wasamended on September 29, 2000.

	 The State filed a second motion to revoke on November 27, 2000, alleging appellantfailed to participate in programs of the community corrections facility.  That motion was alsodismissed pursuant to an agreement modifying the conditions of appellant's communitysupervision.  The agreed order was rendered January 25, 2001. A third motion to revokewas filed April 10, 2001, and alleged appellant "failed to successfully complete" thecommunity corrections facility.  This third motion was also resolved by an agreementresulting in dismissal of the motion and an order modifying the conditions of appellant'sprobation.  That order was rendered June 15, 2001.

	The State filed its fourth motion to revoke on January 6, 2003.  It alleged fiveviolations of the conditions of appellant's community supervision.  They included the failureto keep his probation officer advised of his address and place of employment, failure to payrestitution and court costs, use of controlled substances, failure to complete communityservice work, and failure to complete treatment programs. 

	At a February 21, 2003, hearing appellant plead true to all or part of three of theState's allegations and stipulated to evidence supporting those allegations. He plead nottrue to all of two and part of two other allegations. (1) On being questioned by the trial court,appellant stated that he understood the potential consequences of his pleas and that hehad not been promised anything in exchange for them.  The State presented the testimonyof appellant's community supervision officer.  At the conclusion of the hearing the courtfound true each of the allegations appellant admitted and part of the additional allegations. (2)The court revoked appellant's community supervision, and imposed the original sentenceof ten years confinement.  Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.

	Appellant's counsel has filed a brief stating that he has carefully reviewed the recordand applicable law, and is unable to find a meritorious issue to argue to this Court. The briefdiscusses the procedural history of the case, and cites statutory and case law applicableto revocation of community supervision.  Counsel concludes the record of revocation ofappellant's community supervision reflects no reversible error, and that the appeal isfrivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct.1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493(1967).  Counsel also has filed a motion to withdraw and by letter provided appellant a copyof the brief and informed appellant of his rights to review the trial record and to file a pro sebrief.  See Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641 (Tex.App.--Waco 1994, pet. ref'd).  By letterdated October 2, 2003, this Court also notified appellant of his opportunity to submit aresponse to the Anders brief and motion to withdraw filed by his counsel, granting him untilOctober 27, 2003, to do so. This court's letter also reminded appellant to contact hiscounsel if he needed to review any part of the appellate record to prepare a response.Appellant has not filed a brief or other response.  The State has not filed a brief in thisappeal.

	In conformity with the standards set out by the United States Supreme Court, we willnot rule on the motion to withdraw until we have independently examined the record.Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1997, no pet.).  If this courtdetermines the appeal has merit, we will remand it to the trial court for appointment of 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 determining whether the trial courtabused its discretion.  Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984);Jackson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983). The trial court abuses itsdiscretion in revoking community supervision if the State fails to meet its burden of proof. Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 494.  

	In a revocation proceeding, the State must prove by a preponderance of theevidence that appellant violated a condition of community supervision as alleged in themotion to revoke.  Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). The trialjudge in such a proceeding is the sole trier of the facts. Taylor v. State, 604 S.W.2d 175,179 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980). A defendant's plea of true to an alleged violation, standingalone, is sufficient to support the revocation. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470(Tex.Crim.App. 1979). 

	Appellant's pleas of true to three alleged violations of the conditions of hiscommunity supervision and the stipulation of evidence amply support the court's judgmentand there is nothing in the record to suggest that appellant was incompetent or that hispleas and stipulation were not made knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently.  We need notadditionally address the State's remaining allegations because when more than oneviolation is alleged, proof of any one of them is sufficient to support the revocation.  Moorev. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980); Gobell v. State, 528 S.W.2d 223(Tex.Crim.App. 1975); McCollum v. State, 784 S.W.2d 702, 704-05 (Tex.App.--Houston[14th Dist.] 1990, pet. ref'd).

 	Our review convinces us that appellate counsel conducted a complete review of therecord.  We have also made an independent examination of the entire record to determinewhether there are any arguable grounds which might support the appeal. (3)  See Stafford,813 S.W.2d at 511.  We agree it presents no meritorious grounds for review. The trial courtdid not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant's community supervision. We grantcounsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

							James T. Campbell

							         Justice

Do not publish.

1.  The trial court's order reflects appellant plead not true to the allegations in theState's motion.

2.  The additional allegations the court found true were that appellant tested positivefor cocaine use in September 2002, failed to complete a substance abuse felonypunishment aftercare program and failed to attend alcoholics anonymous or narcoticsanonymous meetings "as directed." 

3. In so doing, we have not ignored a letter appellant submitted to the Clerk of thisCourt before the filing of his counsel's Anders brief, by which appellant expressed theunderstanding that he was to be included among a group of defendants who were to bepardoned or receive other relief. Nothing in the record before us, or of which we may takejudicial notice, indicates that such relief has been granted to appellant. Our review in thisappeal is limited to any issues related to revocation of appellant's community supervision. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.12 § 23(b); see Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661(Tex.Crim.App. 1999). Appellant has the option of presenting issues concerning hisconviction to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals by an application for a post-convictionwrit of habeas corpus, pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.