Opinion
No. 11-08-00197-CR
Opinion filed January 15, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 142nd District Court, Midland County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. CR31933.
Panel consists of: WRIGHT, C.J., McCALL, J., and STRANGE, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision. The trial court originally convicted Summer D. Teeters, upon her plea of guilty, of theft by check and assessed her punishment at confinement for one year in a state jail facility. Pursuant to the plea bargain, the trial court suspended the imposition of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for two years. At the hearing on the State's motion to revoke, appellant entered pleas of true to the State's allegations. The trial court found the allegations to be true, revoked her community supervision, and imposed the original sentence of confinement for one year 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 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.-Eastland 2005, no pet.). Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit. 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). The trial court is the trier of the facts and determines the weight and credibility of the testimony. Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981); Barnett v. State, 615 S.W.2d 220 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981). 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 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.-Eastland 2007, no pet.). The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.