|
|
|
|
Opinion filed July 3, 2008
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-08-00070-CR
__________
NANCY JO SOTO, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 106th District Court
Gaines County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 06-3665
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision. The trial court convicted Nancy Jo Soto, upon her plea of guilty, of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver in a drug-free zone and assessed her punishment at confinement for seven years and a $1,000 fine. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court suspended the imposition of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for seven years. At the hearing on the State=s motion to revoke, appellant entered pleas of true to three of the eight allegations that she had violated the terms and conditions of her community supervision. The trial court found that she had violated the terms and conditions of her community supervision, revoked her community supervision, and imposed the original sentence of confinement for seven years and a $1,000 fine. 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 her 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); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); 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. 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). Appellant entered pleas of true to three allegations. We agree that the appeal is without merit.
We also note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that she 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 she 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
July 3, 2008
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.