Court Opinion

ID: 3094758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 04:24:01.686672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:16.037404
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-12-0333-CR
                                       
                            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                                       
                       FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                       
                                  AT AMARILLO
                                       
                                    PANEL C
                                       
                                JANUARY 3, 2013
                                       
                        ______________________________
                                       
                                       
                        SKYLER DANE FERGUSON, APPELLANT
                                       
                                      V.
                                       
                         THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
	
                                       
                       _________________________________
                                       
                FROM THE 242[ND] DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
                                       
                  NO. B 18004-0904; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE
                                       
                        _______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
                              MEMORANDUM OPINION
In July 2011, Appellant, Skyler Dane Ferguson, was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for eight years for possession of methamphetamine in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200.  The State moved to proceed with an adjudication of guilt in early 2012 and following a hearing, notwithstanding the trial court's finding that Appellant had violated the terms and conditions of community supervision, she was continued on community supervision with modified terms.  Later in 2012, the State again moved to proceed with an adjudication of guilt for violations of her new terms and conditions of community supervision.  Following a hearing at which Appellant entered a plea of true to the allegations, the trial court heard evidence and adjudicated her guilty of the original offense and assessed punishment at ten years confinement and a fine of $10,000.  In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders brief in support of a motion to withdraw.  We grant counsels motion and affirm.
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no potentially plausible basis to support an appeal.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008).  Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling authorities, the appeal is frivolous.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978).  Counsel has demonstrated that he has complied with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to Appellant, (2) notifying her of her right to file a pro se response if she desired to do so, and (3) informing her of her right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.  In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408.  By letter, this Court granted Appellant an opportunity to exercise her right to file a response to counsels brief, should she be so inclined.  Id. at 409 n.23.  Appellant did not file a response.  Neither did the State favor us with a brief.
By the Anders brief, counsel candidly concedes there are no arguable issues to present to this Court.  We review an appeal from a trial court's order adjudicating guilt in the same manner as a revocation hearing.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (West Supp. 2012).  When reviewing an order revoking community supervision imposed under an order of deferred adjudication, the sole question before this Court is whether the trial court abused its discretion.  Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006); 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).  In a revocation proceeding, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the probationer violated a condition of community supervision as alleged in the motion.  Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993).  If the State fails to meet its burden of proof, the trial court abuses its discretion in revoking community supervision.  Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 494.  In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a revocation, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling.  Jones v. State, 589 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979).  Additionally, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial courts revocation order.  Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979).  
We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues which might support the appeal.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  We have found no such issues.  See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969).  After reviewing the record and counsels brief, we agree with counsel that there are no plausible grounds for appeal.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). 
Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the trial court's judgment is affirmed. 

Patrick A. Pirtle
							      Justice

Do not publish.