1 John T. Boyd, Chi ef Ju stice (Ret.), Sevent h Court of Appeals, s itting by

assignment . T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp . 2002). NO. 07-02-0023 -CR NO. 07-02-0024 -CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L E SEPTE MBE R 25, 2002

______________________________ ANTONIO W ILSON, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 252 ND DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON CO UNTY; NOS. 74285 A ND 78058; HON ORABLELARRY GIST, JUD GE

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, SJ. 1
In these appeal s, Antonio W ilson challe nges the revocati on of his prob ation granted after his 1997 convi ction for po ssession of a contr olle d substance and his 1998 conviction of unlawful possession of a f i rea rm by

a felon following guilty pleas pursuant to plea2

bar gain agreements in which he wassentenced to tw o years in the state j ail, probated for four years, and a fine of $500 for the poss ession of a controll ed substance offense and five yearsin the Institutional Division of the Departm ent of Criminal Justi ce, probated for five years, and a $1,000 fine for the unlawful possession of a firearm offense. No appeal w as broughtfr om tho se convictions at the tim e of their entry. In M arch 2001, the Sta te filed second amended m otions to revo ke probation alleging 12 violati ons of probation. At a hearing on October 23, 2001, appellant pled “not true” to counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 11 of the m otions to revoke. He pled “true” to count 6 of themo tions, and counts 7, 8, and 12 were dism issed by the State.
Count 3 of the m otions was an allegation that appellant had comm itted the off ense of aggravated assault on Septem ber 6, 2000. On the s ame day that appellant pled “not true” to the allegation, he went to t rial on that offense. After thejury returned its verdict of guilt, the court found the allegation in count 3 to be true and gra nted the motions to revoke probat ion. On Nov ember 26, 2001, the court ordered a ppellant to serve two years in a state jail for possession of a controlled substance and five years in th e D ep ar tme nt of Criminal Jus ti ce fo r u nl awf ul po sse ssi on of a fi re ar m, wi th the se ntences to run concurrently. Appellant filed general notices of appeal. Appella nt’s appointed co unsel has now filed m otions to withdraw , together w ith Anders briefs. See Anders v. Cali fornia, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 139 6, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). In those briefs, she certifies thatafter careful exam ination of the record, she3

is c onv in ced tha t it doesnot rev eal any reversible error. Included with the briefsare mot ions to withdraw

and a statem ent, supported by a copy of a letter to appellant, that she has not ified himof h is rig ht to filea br ie f on his own behalf. This court also notified appellant by letter dated July 3, 2002, that hehad until August 5, 2002, to fi le a respon se to thebrie fs a nd m otio ns of his cou nse l. No response has been received. Upon the filing of an Anders

brief, we m ust satisfy ourselves that the attorney hasprovided the client with
a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable claim t hat m ight support the clien t’s appeal and then determ ine whether counsel has correctly concluded the appea l is frivolous. See McCoy v. Court of Appeal

s of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 442, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (198 8); High v. State , 573 S .W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.C rim. App. 1 978). Appella nt’s counsel as serts t hat the re isno m erit

in t he a ppe als b eca use , in accordance w ith Texas Ru le of Appellate Procedure 25.2(b)(3), w hen an appeal is from
a j udg m ent

ren der ed o n a p lea of gu iltand the punishm ent assessed doesnot exceed that
recom mende d by the prosecutor a nd agreed to by the defendant, the no tice mu st specify thatthe appeal is for

a jurisdictional defect, specify that the substance of t he appeal was raised by written m otion and ruled on before trial, or state that the trial court granted permission to appeal. However, it has been held that the requirem ents of Rule 25.2 donot app lyto an appeal of

a probation revocation involving “regular” probation, even when the probation w as t he r

esu lt of a gu ilt y plea. See Feagi n v. State, 967 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex.Crim .App. 1998). Nevertheless, a def end ant placed on “regular” comm unity supervision m ay raise iss ues re lating to his conviction only in appeals taken when t he2 We have affirmed th at conviction on appeal. See Wilson v. State, No. 07-01-0025-

CR, s lip op. (Tex .App. --Am arillo Septem ber 25, 2 002). 4 com munity

supervision is original ly imposed. Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Tex.Crim .App. 1999). The only exceptionsarew hen thej udg m ent is v oid a nd w hen a w rit of habeas corpus is litigated at the revocation proceeding. Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664, 667-69 (Tex.Crim .A pp. 2 001). There is no evidence of either of these s ituations in the record. Therefore, on appeal we are lim ited to determ ining whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation. Cardona v. Stat e, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex.C ri m. App. 1984). An abuse of di sc retion on ly occurs “when the tri al court’s deci sion was so clea rly wrong as to lie outside the zon e w ithin which reasonable persons might disagree.” Cantu v. State, 842 S.W.2d 667, 682 (Tex.Crim .App. 1992), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 926, 113 S.Ct. 3046, 125 L.Ed.2d 731 (1993). Proof that any one c ondition of com munity supervision was violated i s sufficie nt to affirm an order re voki ng probation. Moses v. State , 590 S. W .2d 469, 470 (Tex .Crim .App. 1979). Appellantpled true to one count of the mot ions to revo ke proba tion and, after ajury verdict, was convicted of another count. 2

We have als o m ade an inde pendent exa m ination of t he recor d to determ in e whether there are any arguable grounds w hich might support the appeals. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim .App. 19 91 ). Fi nd in g n on e, we agree th at the a ppeals are without m erit and are frivolous. Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim .App. 1974).5

Accordingl y, the m otions to withdraw are granted, and the j udgme nts are affirm ed.
John T. Boyd Senior Justi ce Do not publish.