Willie Anthony McMichael v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-02-213 CR
____________________
WILLIE ANTHONY MCMICHAEL, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 78812
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Willie Anthony McMichael pleaded guilty to the state jail felony offense of recklessly causing injury to a child. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 22.04(a)(3),(f) (Vernon Supp. 2003). The trial court convicted McMichael assessing a sentence of two years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, State Jail Division, and a $1000 fine, but suspended imposition of the sentence. The trial court placed McMichael on community supervision for five years, beginning November 8, 1999. After finding that McMichael failed to report to his community supervision officer, left the county without permission, changed addresses without notifying the probation department, and failed to complete the anger management program as ordered by the court, the trial court entered a revocation order and imposed a sentence of two years of confinement in a state jail facility.

Appellate counsel filed a brief that concludes no arguable error is presented in this appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On September 19, 2002, McMichael was given an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant. Because the appeal involves the application of well-settled principles of law, we deliver this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

Issues relating to the conviction may be raised only in an appeal taken when community supervision is originally imposed. See Whetstone v. State, 786 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990), overruled in part on other grounds by Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). In the appeal of an order revoking community supervision, the only question presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the appellant's community supervision. Jackson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). McMichael pleaded "true" to four allegations contained in the State's motion to revoke. The trial court acted within its discretion.

We have reviewed the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and find no arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on January 2, 2003

Opinion Delivered January 15, 2003

Do Not Publish

 

Before McKeithen, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.