Ronald Lynn Thomas v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 249th District Court of Johnson County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-04-00009-CR

Ronald Lynn Thomas,

Appellant

v.

The State of  Texas,

Appellee

From the 249th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court # F34435

MEMORANDUM Opinion

Ronald Lynn Thomas appeals the revocation of his community supervision for criminal non-support. Thomas s counsel filed an Anders brief contending that this appeal presents no issues of arguable merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Thomas has not filed a pro se brief or other response, though he was notified of his right to do so. See Sowels v. State, 45 S.W.3d 690, 691 (Tex. App. Waco 2001, no pet.). Because our independent review of the record reveals no issues of arguable merit, we will affirm.

The state filed its revocation motion, Thomas was arrested, and the revocation hearing was conducted well before the expiration of Thomas's term of community supervision. See Peacock v. State, 77 S.W.3d 285, 287 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Thomas pled true to the motion to revoke. See Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (finding an appellant's pleading of true sufficient to support the order revoking probation). There is no evidence in the record to indicate that Thomas was incompetent. The trial court properly admonished Thomas, including advising him as to the range of punishment. Thomas testified that he had received a copy of the motion to revoke, he had read it and discussed it with his attorney, and that he was pleading true freely and voluntarily. No error occurred at the revocation hearing, and nothing indicates that trial counsel was ineffective. The punishment assessed by the trial court of twenty-four months confinement was within the statutory range. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 25.05 (Vernon 2003); Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 12.35 (Vernon 2003).

Our independent review of the record has revealed no issues of arguable merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. Because the trial court has already granted counsel s motion to withdraw, Thomas is hereby notified that he has a right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals.[1] See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); see also Sowels, 45 S.W.3d at 694; Tex. R. App. P. 68.

FELIPE REYNA

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed April 13, 2005

Do not publish

[CR25]

[1] The petition must be filed with the clerk of this court within thirty days. Tex. R. App. P. 68.3.