ROBYN LEE BRACKETT v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 377th District Court of Victoria County

NUMBER 13-01-614-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

  CORPUS CHRISTI  BEDINBURG

ROBYN LEE BRACKETT, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 377th District Court

of Victoria County, Texas.

O P I N I O N

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Baird[1]

Opinion by Justice Baird

Appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of theft. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement with the Sate, appellant pled guilty to the charged offense and punishment was assessed at two years confinement in a state jail facility, probated for five years, and a fine of $500.00. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke appellant=s community supervision. Appellant pled true to the allegations in that motion. The trial court assessed punishment at two years confinement. We affirm.

I. Appellant=s Appeal

Counsel has filed an Anders brief. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel states that he has reviewed the reporter=s record and the clerk=s record in this case, that he has researched the applicable statutory and decisional authority, and that he has found no reversible error and no arguable grounds of error for purposes of appeal. The State has filed a letter brief concurring with this assessment. We find counsel has presented a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

Additionally, counsel=s brief includes a letter dated November 5, 2001, informing appellant of her right to review the court reporter=s and clerk=s records, and to file a pro se brief. No such brief has been filed.

We too have carefully reviewed the appellate record and have found no reversible error or any arguable point(s) of error for appeal. A trial court is vested with discretion to revoke an individual's community supervision. Herrera v. State, 951 S.W.2d 197, 199 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi 1997, no pet.). A single violation of a condition of community supervision is sufficient to support a trial court's decision to revoke. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). After considering all the evidence, the court may revoke community supervision if the State proves the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Battle v. State, 571 S.W.2d 20, 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Standing alone, a plea of true is sufficient to support the trial court's order of revocation. Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Rivera v. State, 688 S.W.2d 659, 660 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi 1985, no pet.). As noted above, appellant pled true to multiple allegations in the State=s motion seeking revocation. Accordingly, the State has satisfied its burden.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

II. Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

In accordance with Anders, appellant's attorney has asked permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and order counsel to notify appellant of the disposition of this appeal and of the availability of discretionary review. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

CHARLES BAIRD,

Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this 23rd day of May, 2002.

[1]Former Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Charles F. Baird assigned to this Court by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant to Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. '74.003 (Vernon 1998).