|
|
|
|
Opinion filed June 29, 2006
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
Nos. 11-06-00008-CR & 11-06-00009-CR
__________
CHISUM RAINS VALLEY, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 29th District Court
Palo Pinto County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 12269 & 12295
O P I N I O N
These are appeals from judgments revoking community supervision. We affirm.
In Cause No. 11-06-00008-CR, Chisum Rains Valley was originally convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of the offense of burglary of a habitation. Punishment was assessed at confinement for eight years and a $4,000 fine. However, the trial court suspended the imposition of the confinement portion of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for eight years.
In Cause No. 11-06-00009-CR, appellant was originally convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of the offense of theft. Punishment was assessed at confinement in a state jail facility for twenty-four months. However, the trial court suspended the imposition of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for five years.
In each case, the State filed motions to revoke. The motions were heard in a joint hearing. Appellant entered a plea of not true to the first allegation in each motion and pleas of true to the remaining allegations in each motion. The trial court found the allegations to be true and revoked appellant=s community supervision in each case. In Cause No. 11-06-00008-CR, the trial court imposed a sentence of confinement for eight years. In Cause No. 11-06-00009-CR, the trial court imposed a sentence of confinement for two years in a state jail facility.
In each case, appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motions are supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeals are frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the briefs and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel=s briefs. Responses have not been filed. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.CEastland 2005, no pet.).
Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeals are without merit. We note that proof of one violation of the terms and conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support the revocations. McDonald v. State, 608 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Taylor v. State, 604 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). A plea of true alone is sufficient to support the trial court=s determinations to revoke. Moses, 590 S.W.2d 469; Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).
The motions to withdraw are granted, and the judgments are affirmed.
PER CURIAM
June 29, 2006
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., and
McCall, J., and Strange, J.