Antwon Dandrea Reeves v. State

In The



Court of Appeals



Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________



NO. 09-05-097 CR

____________________



ANTWON DANDREA REEVES, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 02-177935




MEMORANDUM OPINION

Antwon Dandrea Reeves pled guilty in Cause No. 02-177935 to the Class B misdemeanor offense of failure to identify as a fugitive. Act of May 29, 1993, 73rd Leg., R.S., ch. 900, § 1.01, sec. 38.02 (b), (d), 1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 3586, 3666 (amended 2003). (1) The trial court convicted and sentenced Reeves to 180 days of confinement in the Montgomery County Jail, then suspended imposition of the sentence and placed Reeves on community supervision for one year, beginning February 12, 2003. The trial court later extended the period of community supervision an additional six months. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke community supervision. Reeves pled true to the State's allegations that he violated the terms of the community supervision order. The trial court found the allegations to be true, entered a revocation order and imposed a sentence of 90 days of jail confinement.

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 February 16, 2006, Reeves was given an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief. The appellant did not file a response.

In a revocation proceeding, the State must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated the conditions of the supervision order. Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). On appeal, the 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). If the State meets its burden of proof, it is within the trial court's discretion to revoke community supervision. Id. A plea of true to any one alleged violation is sufficient to support a revocation of supervision. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). Where the trial court returns a probationer to community supervision following a hearing on a motion to revoke, any subsequent revocation must be based upon a determination that the defendant breached the conditions after he was returned to community supervision or that there is newly discovered evidence of a previous violation which was not known at the time of the original revocation hearing. Rogers v. State, 640 S.W.2d 248, 263 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)(opin. on 2nd reh'g). In this case, Reeves pled true to having violated a condition of the community supervision order. Included in the allegations were a violation occurring after the date of the prior order and a newly discovered criminal offense. The trial court acted within its discretion.

We have reviewed the clerk's and the reporter's records, 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 trial court's judgment is affirmed. (2)

AFFIRMED.

____________________________

STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice



Submitted on May 22, 2006

Opinion Delivered May 31, 2006

Do Not Publish



Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.

1.

Appellant committed the offense on July 29, 2002. For the current version of the statute, see Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 38.02 (Vernon Supp. 2005).

2.

Appellant may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.