|
|
|
|
Opinion filed August 23, 2007
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-07-00155-CR
__________
RANDELL CHARLES COLLINS, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 385th District Court
Midland County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CR31504
O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision. The jury convicted Randell Charles Collins of possession of marihuana in the amount of more than four ounces but five pounds or less. The jury assessed his punishment at confinement for two years and a fine of $2,400 and recommended that the confinement portion of the sentence be suspended. The trial court placed appellant on community supervision for five years. At the hearing on the State=s motion to revoke, appellant entered pleas of true to three of the State=s allegations. The trial court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision, and imposed a fine of $2,400 and confinement for two years in a state jail facility. 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 presents four potential points of error.
In the first potential point, counsel examines whether appellant was denied the benefit of a fair and impartial hearing on the motion to revoke. We agree with counsel=s analysis and conclusion that the record reflects no abuse of appellant=s rights. The first point is overruled.
In the second potential point, counsel questions whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that appellant violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. We note that appellant entered pleas of true to three of the allegations. 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 v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). A plea of true alone is sufficient to support the trial court=s determination to revoke. Moses, 590 S.W.2d at 470; Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). The second point is overruled.
In the third potential point, counsel contends that the trial court may have abused its discretion by assessing the maximum penalty for the offense. A penalty assessed within the range of punishment established by the legislature will not be disturbed on appeal. Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Bradfield v. State, 42 S.W.3d 350 (Tex. App.CEastland 2001, pet. ref=d). This potential point is overruled.
In the last potential point, counsel examines whether appellant was denied the effective assistance of counsel when he entered his pleas of true at the hearing. In order to determine whether appellant=s trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance at trial, we must first determine whether appellant has shown that counsel=s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and, if so, then determine whether there is a reasonable probability that the result would have been different but for counsel=s errors. Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520 (2003); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690 (1984); Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98, 101 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). We must indulge a strong presumption that counsel=s conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance, and appellant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy. Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828, 833 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 508-09 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We agree with counsel=s conclusion that the record does not support the contention that appellant failed to receive effective assistance of counsel. The fourth potential point is overruled.
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, 813 S.W.2d at 510-11; 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 counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Likewise, this court advises appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 66. Black v. State, 217 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.CEastland 2007, no pet.).
The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
August 23, 2007
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.