|
|
|
|
Opinion filed August 9, 2007
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
____________
Nos. 11-07-00111-CR & 11-07-00112-CR
__________
JOSHUA DOUGLAS PATTESON, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 93342 & 93380
O P I N I O N
These are appeals from judgments revoking community supervision. Originally, Joshua Douglas Patteson entered pleas of guilty to two state jail felony offenses of theft. Plea bargain agreements were not reached. The trial court convicted appellant and assessed punishment in each case at confinement for two years in a state jail facility and a $1,000 fine. However, the trial court suspended the imposition of each sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for a period five years. At the hearing on the State=s motions to revoke, appellant entered pleas of true to two of the State=s allegations that he violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. In each case, the trial court found the allegations to be true, revoked appellant=s community supervision, and imposed a sentence of confinement in a state jail facility for eighteen months. 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 counsel 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 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).
We also 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 motions to withdraw are granted, and the judgments are affirmed.
August 9, 2007 PER CURIAM
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.