|
|
|
|
Opinion filed January 26, 2006
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-05-00272-CR
__________
EFREN PIEDRA JR., Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-0453899-NL
O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision. Efren Piedra Jr. originally entered a plea of guilty to the offense of evading arrest. A plea bargain agreement was not reached. The trial court convicted appellant and assessed his punishment at confinement for two years and a $500 fine. The trial court suspended the imposition of the sentence and placed appellant on Ashock probation@ for five years. At the hearing on the State=s motion to revoke, appellant entered pleas of true to the allegations that he violated the terms and conditions of his Ashock probation.@ The trial court found the allegations to be true, revoked his community supervision, and imposed the original sentence of confinement for two years. We affirm.
Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel=s brief. A response has 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 appeal is without merit. We note that a plea of true alone is sufficient to support the trial court=s determination to revoke. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). Moreover, proof of one violation of the terms and conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support the revocation. 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, 590 S.W.2d at 469.
The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
January 26, 2006
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., and
McCall, J., and Strange, J.