Christopher D. Brown v. State of Texas--Appeal from 137th District Court of Lubbock County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-01-0082-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
NOVEMBER 29, 2001
______________________________
CHRISTOPHER D. BROWN, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 99-431758; HONORABLE CECIL G. PURYEAR, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.
Upon a plea of guilty, on July 27, 2000, appellant Christopher D. Brown was
convicted of possession of a controlled substance, a state jail felony, and punishment was
assessed at 18 months confinement. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence
and placed appellant on community supervision. Upon the State’s motion to revoke for
alleged violations of the terms and conditions of community supervision, the trial court
conducted a hearing. After evidence was presented, appellant’s community supervision
was revoked and the original sentence of 18 months confinement was imposed. In
presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders1 brief in support of a motion to
withdraw. Based upon the rationale expressed herein, the motion to withdraw is granted
and the judgment is affirmed.
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that he has diligently
reviewed the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error or grounds
upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87
S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Monroe v. State, 671 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex.App.--San
Antonio 1984, no pet.). Thus, he concludes the appeal is frivolous and without merit. In
compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978), counsel has
candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the court's
judgment. Counsel has also shown that he sent a copy of the brief to appellant, and
informed appellant that, in counsel's view, the appeal is without merit. In addition, counsel
has demonstrated that he notified appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro
se brief if he desired to do so. Appellant did not file a pro se brief and the State did not
favor us with a brief.
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
2
At the hearing on the State’s motion to revoke appellant entered a plea of not true
to the allegations and the State presented evidence of the violations. A community
supervision officer testified that appellant violated the conditions of his community
supervision by failing:
C
to report for the month of September 2000;
C
to provide proof of employment;
C
to complete Life Skills and Employment Education classes;
C
to pay court costs for September 2000;
C
to pay community supervision fees for September 2000;
C
to pay restitution for September 2000;
C
to report to the community supervision office twice daily when not
gainfully employed; and
C
to pay attorney’s fees for September 2000.
Officers Robert Garza and Morene Pair of the Texas Tech Police Department testified that
appellant evaded arrest on September 11, 2000, after an attempted theft was reported on
campus. At the conclusion of the evidence the trial court found that appellant had violated
numerous conditions and revoked community supervision.
Counsel presents one arguable issue by which he contends the trial court abused
its discretion in revoking appellant’s community supervision. When reviewing an order
revoking community supervision, the sole question before this Court is whether the trial
court abused its discretion. Jackson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex.Cr.App. 1983).
3
In a revocation proceeding, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
appellant violated a condition of community supervision.
revocation supports the trial court’s order.
One sufficient ground for
Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 925
(Tex.Cr.App. 1980). The evidence presented by the State established by a preponderance
of the evidence that appellant violated numerous conditions of his community supervision.
Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking his community supervision and
imposing the original sentence of 18 years confinement.
We have also made an independent examination of the entire record to determine
whether there are any arguable grounds which might support the appeal. See Penson v.
Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d
503, 511 (Tex.Cr.App. 1991). We have found no such grounds and agree with counsel
that the appeal is without merit and is, therefore, frivolous. Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d
684 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974); Lacy v. State, 477 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972).
Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the judgment of
the trial court is affirmed.
Don H. Reavis
Justice
Do not publish.
4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
