Timothy Mark Smith v. State of Texas--Appeal from 266th District Court of Erath County

Opinion filed May 1, 2008

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

____________

 No. 11-08-00051-CR

__________

  TIMOTHY MARK SMITH, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 266th District Court

Erath County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10744

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

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

The trial court convicted Timothy Mark Smith, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal non-support. The trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for two years in a State Jail Facility. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the imposition of the sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on community supervision for five years. Appellant entered pleas of true to the allegations in the State=s amended second motion to revoke. After a hearing, the trial court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision, and imposed the original sentence of confinement for two years.

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 she 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. We note that 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, 128 (Tex .Crim. App. 1979).

Counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant within five days from the date of this opinion that appellant may file a petition for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Tex. R. App. P. 48.4; 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, 217 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.CEastland 2007, no pet.).

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

PER CURIAM

May 1, 2008

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.