ANTHONY ROBBINS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Affirmed and Opinion Filed November 28, 1989
 
 
S
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-89-00297-CR
............................
 
ANTHONY ROBBINS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.................................................................
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Grayson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 88-770
.................................................................
OPINION PER CURIAM
Before Justices McClung, Lagarde and Ovard
        Anthony Robbins appeals from the revocation of his probation, received upon his conviction for theft by check of property over $20. Punishment was assessed at six months' confinement.
        Appellant's attorney has filed a brief in which appellant's attorney has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no meritorious grounds to be advanced. See 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). A copy of counsel's brief has been delivered to appellant and appellant has been advised that he would be given the opportunity to examine the appellate record and that he had a right to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. Counsel has raised one arguable point of error, claiming that the evidence is insufficient to support the allegations made in the motion to revoke. We overrule his point and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
        The record reflects that the State alleged three bases for revoking appellant's probation: (1) failure to report to his probation officer as ordered; (2) failure to pay a supervisory fee to the Grayson County Adult Probation Department; and (3) failure to make restitution to the Grayson County Attorney. Appellant entered a plea of true to these charges. The State called no witnesses. Appellant testified on his own behalf, and said that he had been out of work since his conviction. However, he admitted that he had failed to report to his probation officer or pay his fees.
        A plea of true to allegations in a motion to revoke probation is sufficient, standing alone, to support a revocation of probation. Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Even if appellant testifies and raises a defensive issue, the trial court has no obligation to withdraw the plea of true. Cole, 578 S.W.2d at 128. Even if appellant's testimony raised the defense of inability to pay, his plea of true to the allegations in the motion to revoke were sufficient to support the revocation of his probation. Appellant's point of error is overruled.
        We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
        The judgment is affirmed.
 
                                                          PER CURIAM
 
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 90
890297F.U05
 
 
File Date[11-27-89]
File Name[890297F]