In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-02-214 CR
____________________
TIMOTHY WAYNE DAIGLE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 83599
Timothy Wayne Daigle pleaded guilty to the state jail felony offense of burglary of a building. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2003). The trial court convicted Daigle, assessing a sentence of two years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, State Jail Division, and a $200 fine, but suspended imposition of the sentence. The trial court placed Daigle on community supervision for four years, beginning June 25, 2001. After finding that Daigle failed to report to his community supervision officer and failed to pay fees, the trial court entered a revocation order and imposed a sentence of eighteen months of confinement in a state jail facility.
Appellate counsel filed a brief that concludes no arguable error is presented in this appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On September 12, 2002, Daigle was given an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant. Because the appeal involves the application of well-settled principles of law, we deliver this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Issues relating to the conviction may be raised only in an appeal taken when community supervision is originally imposed. See Whetstone v. State, 786 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990), overruled in part on other grounds by Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). In the appeal of an order revoking community supervision, the only question presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the appellant's community supervision. Jackson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). Daigle pleaded "true" to two allegations contained in the State's motion to revoke. The trial court acted within its discretion.
We have reviewed the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and find no arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on January 2, 2003
Opinion Delivered January 15, 2003
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.