Edgar Gonzalez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 32nd District Court of Mitchell County

Opinion filed May 10, 2007

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

____________

   No. 11-07-00012-CR

  __________

   EDGAR GONZALEZ, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 32nd District Court

Mitchell County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 6878

O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision. We affirm.

The trial court convicted Edgar Gonzalez, upon his plea of nolo contendere, of possession of marihuana and assessed his punishment at confinement for seven years and a $1,000 fine. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court suspended the imposition of the confinement portion of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for seven years on October 20, 2005. On July 6, 2006, the State filed an application to revoke community supervision alleging six violations of the terms and conditions of the community supervision. Appellant entered pleas of true to the State=s allegations. The trial court found the allegations to be true, revoked appellant=s community supervision, and imposed a sentence of confinement for five years and a $1,000 fine.

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 his 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); 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.CEastland 2005, no pet.).

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit. A plea of true alone is sufficient to support the trial court=s determination to revoke. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).

We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he 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 he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 66. Black v. State, No. 11-06-00273-CR, 2007 WL 431005 (Tex. App.CEastland Feb. 8, 2007, no pet.).

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

May 10, 2007

Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.