In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-12-00368-CR
JIMMY LAWSON THORNTON, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 47th District Court
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 47,882-A; Honorable Dan L. Schaap, Presiding
July 17, 2013
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
On August 15, 2005, Appellant, Jimmy Lawson Thornton, was convicted of
driving while intoxicated, third or more, 1 and sentenced to ten years confinement
suspended in favor of seven years community supervision. On May 30, 2012, just
months before expiration of the seven-year community supervision period, the State
filed a motion to revoke alleging that Appellant had committed a new DWI offense,
consumed alcohol and was at a bar, all in violation of the terms and conditions of his
1
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.09(b)(2) (W EST SUPP. 2012).
community supervision. Appellant’s new DWI offense resulted from him being involved
in an accident when his vehicle struck a vehicle driven by a mother accompanied by her
two children. His blood alcohol was 0.15.
After a hearing, at which Appellant entered pleas of true to the three allegations,
the trial court granted the motion to revoke and assessed the original sentence of ten
years confinement. 2 In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders 3 brief in
support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel=s motion and affirm.
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a
conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no
potentially plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction. Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the
controlling authorities, the record supports that conclusion. See High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated that he has
complied with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of
the brief to Appellant, (2) notifying him of his right to file a pro se response if he desired
to do so, and (3) informing him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
2
The hearing was a joint proceeding on the motion to revoke (cause number 47,882-A) and an open plea
of guilty on the new DWI charge (cause number 65,279-A). The trial court found Appellant guilty of the
new offense and sentenced him to ten years confinement to be served concurrently with the sentence in
cause number 47,882-A. According to counsel’s Anders brief, Appellant filed an intent to appeal the new
conviction but was never appointed counsel to pursue the appeal. He has filed a writ of habeas corpus
for an out-of-time appeal.
3
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
2
review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. 4 By letter, this Court granted Appellant an
opportunity to exercise his right to file a response to counsel=s brief, should he be so
inclined. Id. at 409 n.23. Appellant did not file a response. Neither did the State favor
us with a brief.
By the Anders brief, counsel demonstrates that the State’s motion to revoke was
filed within the seven-year community supervision period. He evaluates trial counsel’s
representation as effective and shows that Appellant’s sentence is within the range
permitted by statute. He concludes there are no grounds to support reversal of
Appellant’s conviction.
When reviewing an order revoking community supervision, the sole question
before this Court is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Cardona v. State, 665
S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984); Jackson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305
(Tex.Crim.App. 1983). In a revocation proceeding, the State must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the probationer violated a condition of community
supervision as alleged in the motion to revoke. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874
(Tex.Crim.App. 1993). If the State fails to meet its burden of proof, the trial court
abuses its discretion in revoking community supervision. Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 494.
In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a revocation, we view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Jones v. State, 589
4
Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review
upon execution of the Trial Court=s Certification of Defendant=s Right of Appeal, counsel must comply with
Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within five days
after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together with
notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408
n.22 & at 411 n.35.
3
S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979). When more than one violation of the conditions
of community supervision is found by the trial court, the revocation order shall be
affirmed if one sufficient ground supports the court's order. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d
924, 926 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980); Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193 (Tex.Crim.App.
1978); Leach v. State, 170 S.W.3d 669, 672 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref'd).
Additionally, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support the trial court=s
revocation order. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979).
We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there
are any non-frivolous issues which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409;
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We have found no such
issues. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). After reviewing
the record and counsel=s brief, we agree with counsel that there is no plausible basis for
reversal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).
CONCLUSION
The judgment is affirmed and counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.
Patrick A. Pirtle
Justice
Do not publish.
4