Opinion
No. 04-03-00244-CR.
Delivered and Filed: February 4, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Appeal from the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 1997-CR-0578, Honorable Sharon MacRae, Judge Presiding. Motion to Withdraw Granted; Affirmed.
Sitting: SARAH B. DUNCAN, Justice, SANDEE BRYAN MARION, Justice, PHYLIS J. SPEEDLIN, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Alexandria Ward appeals the trial court's order revoking her community supervision and sentencing her to three years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice — Institutional Division. We affirm. Ward's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which she raises no arguable points of error and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). Ward was provided a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and was informed of her right to review the record and file her own brief. Ward filed a pro se brief in which she contends her plea of true was involuntary because she received ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, she alleges her court-appointed counsel did not meet with her before the revocation hearing, did not discuss the case with her, and misled her into pleading true to the allegations in the motion to revoke. An ineffective assistance of counsel claim can be sustained only if a preponderance of the record evidence shows (1) trial counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defense to such a degree the defendant did not receive a fair trial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Jackson v. State, 973 S.W.2d 954, 956 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). Ward pled true in open court to violating the terms of her community supervision by committing the misdemeanor offenses of theft, failing to identify herself to a police officer with a Texas warrant, tampering with a government record, and failing to report to her supervision officer in the months of September through December of 2002. The record contains no evidence of whether or when Ward met with her attorney, what her attorney told her about the revocation hearing or the pleas she could enter, or of Ward's decision to plead true. Ward has therefore failed to establish her attorney's performance was deficient. Ward also contends one of the grounds in the motion to revoke is not true. However, Ward's "'plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support the revocation of probation.'" Hays v. State, 933 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.) (quoting Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979)). Moreover, Ward has not challenged any of the other grounds in the motion to revoke, each of which she pleaded "true" to and each of which, alone, will support the trial court's revocation. We have reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and Ward's pro se brief and agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We therefore affirm the trial court's judgment and grant the motion to withdraw filed by Ward's counsel. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n. 1 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.).