TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-02-00369-CR
NO. 03-02-00370-CR
Kendrick Lofton, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NOS. B-00-0502-S & B-99-0683-S, HONORABLE RAE LEIFESTE, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Kendrick Lofton was placed on community supervision following convictions for
unauthorized use of a vehicle and forgery. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 31.07 (West 1994), ' 32.21 (West
Supp. 2003). He now appeals from orders revoking supervision and imposing sentence.
Appellant=s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeals are frivolous
and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by
presenting a professional evaluation of the records demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be
advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d
553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant
also filed a pro se brief in which he urges that the evidence does not support the finding that he violated the
conditions of supervision.
The court found that appellant failed to comply with the condition of supervision ordering
him to report to the Tom Green County Jail on June 17, 2001, from where he would be transported to the
Lubbock County Community Corrections Facility, where he was to reside from June 21, 2001, until
discharged. A State witness testified that there was no record of appellant reporting to the Tom Green
County Jail as ordered. Appellant testified that he reported to the jail on June 17, but was turned away. He
testified that he did not attempt to report to the Lubbock County facility because he did not know where it
was located.
At a revocation hearing, the State must prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of
the evidence. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). We review the evidence in
the light most favorable to the court=s finding to determine if the court abused its discretion by revoking
community supervision. Jackson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). As the trier of
2
fact at the hearing, the district court was free to resolve the conflicting testimony in the State=s favor. No
abuse of discretion is shown.
3
We have reviewed the record and briefs and find nothing that might arguably support the
appeals. Counsel=s motions to withdraw are granted and the orders revoking community supervision are
affirmed.
Jan P. Patterson, Justice
Before Justices Kidd, Yeakel and Patterson
Affirmed
Filed: February 6, 2002
Do Not Publish
4