Opinion
No. 10-02-00359-CR
Opinion delivered and filed September 22, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 54th District Court, McLennan County, Texas, Trial Court # 2001-368-C. Affirmed.
Stan Schwieger, Waco, TX, for Appellant. John W. Segrest, McLennan County District Attorney, Waco, TX, for Appellee.
Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Justice REYNA.
MEMORANDUM Opinion
Clifton Randolph appeals the revocation of his community supervision for burglary of a habitation. Randolph's counsel filed an Anders brief contending that this appeal presents no issues of arguable merit. Randolph has not filed a pro se brief or other response, though he was notified of his right to do so. Because our independent review of the record reveals no issues of arguable merit, we will affirm the judgment. The State filed its revocation motion, Randolph was arrested, and the revocation hearing was conducted well before the expiration of Randolph's term of community supervision. Thus, Randolph cannot argue that the State failed to exercise due diligence. See Peacock v. State, 77 S.W.3d 285, 287 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). The State proved the allegations of its motion by a preponderance of evidence. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Randolph's community supervision. See Flournoy v. State, 589 S.W.2d 705, 708 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979); Martinez v. State, 130 S.W.3d 95, 97-98 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2003, no pet.). Our independent review of the record has revealed no issues of arguable merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.