Rita Thompson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 114th District Court of Smith County

Opinion filed June 21, 2007

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

____________

   No. 11-06-00278-CR

__________

   RITA THOMPSON, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 114th District Court

Smith County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 241-0721-00

O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision. The trial court convicted Rita Thompson, upon her plea of guilty, of theft by check and assessed her punishment at confinement for two years. However, the imposition of the sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on community supervision for five years. At the hearing on the State=s motion to revoke, appellant entered a plea of true to the allegation that she violated the terms and conditions of her community supervision by consuming marihuana. 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 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); 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 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.CEastland 2007, no pet.).

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

PER CURIAM

June 21, 2007

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.