Opinion
No. 4-05-00596-CR
Delivered and Filed: July 12, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2004-CR-8849W, Honorable Mary Roman, Judge Presiding. Affirmed.
Sitting: Alma L. LÓPEZ, Chief Justice, Catherine STONE, Justice, Sandee Bryan MARION, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant, Hector Charles, pled nolo contendere to theft under $1500 enhanced. Pursuant to a plea bargain, the court sentenced him to two years' confinement, suspended for two years, and a $1500 fine. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke his probation, alleging he had violated the terms of his probation. Defendant pled true to the State's allegations. The trial court revoked defendant's probation and sentenced him to two years' confinement and a $1500 fine. Defendant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing three arguable issues, but concluding that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). The arguable issues are that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the conviction and the evidence is insufficient to find that defendant violated a condition of his community supervision. Generally, a defendant placed on "regular" community supervision may raise issues relating to his conviction only in appeals taken when community supervision is first imposed. Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). Consequently, issues related to the conviction, such as evidentiary sufficiency, may not be raised in appeals taken after community supervision is revoked. Id. There are two recognized exceptions to this general rule, which are now referred to as: (1) the "void judgment" exception; and (2) the "habeas corpus" exception. See Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664, 667 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). Neither exception applies here. Therefore, defendant may challenge only the revocation proceeding and not the original hearing at which he was placed on probation. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 23(b) (Vernon Supp. 2006). Thus, our independent review of the record is limited to a review of the revocation proceeding. Defendant pled true to theft. Such a plea is sufficient to establish all facts necessary to establish a violation of the conditions of his probation. Hays v. State, 933 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.). When a defendant pleads true to the allegations in the State's motion to revoke probation during the probation revocation proceeding, he may not subsequently challenge the sufficiency of evidence. Id. Counsel has advised his client of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. Defendant has not done so. Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n. 1 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.). We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we grant the motion to withdraw. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177, n. 1.