eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2008-06

in Re Charles Hayes, Relator ( 2008 )


Menu:

  • NO. 07-08-0201-CV


    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


    AT AMARILLO


    PANEL B


    JUNE 24, 2008


    ______________________________


    IN RE CHARLES HAYES, RELATOR

    _______________________________



    Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

    MEMORANDUM OPINION

              Relator Charles Hayes, filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus on May 7, 2008. He did not pay the filing fee required under the Rules of Appellate Procedure, nor did he file an affidavit of indigence in conformity with Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1. By letter from this Court dated May 7, 2008, we advised relator that “the filing fee in the amount of $125.00 has not been paid. Failure to pay the filing fee within ten (10) days from the date of this notice may result in a dismissal.” Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). Relator has not paid the fee as directed or filed an affidavit of indigence.

              Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 42.3(c).

                                                                    Mackey K. Hancock

                                                                            Justice


    the motion to revoke. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). If the State fails to meet its burden of proof, the trial court abuses its discretion in revoking community supervision. Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 494. When more than one violation of the conditions of probation is found by the trial court, the order revoking probation will be affirmed if one sufficient ground for revocation supports a revocation order. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980). Furthermore, a defendant's plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support the trial court's revocation order. Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979).

    We have made an independent examination of the record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds meriting appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed 2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We have not found any arguable issues and agree with counsel that an appeal is frivolous. Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974); Lacy v. State, 477 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972).

    Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.



    Phil Johnson

    Chief Justice







    Do not publish.