Ronnie Lee Trevino v. State ( 2005 )

NO. 07-05-0216-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
NOVEMBER 3, 2005
______________________________
RONNIE TREVINO, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF SWISHER COUNTY;
NO. A 3692-0203; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and HANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Ronnie Trevino was convicted of forgery
and sentenced to two years confinement and a $500 fine. The confinement was
suspended in favor of three years of community supervision. After a hearing on the State’s
motion to revoke, the trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision and assessed
the original punishment. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders1 brief in
support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm.
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has diligently reviewed the
record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can
be predicated. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 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. 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 response if he desired to do so. Appellant did not file a
response. Neither did the State favor us with a brief.
The State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision alleging (1)
on May 8, 2005, appellant unlawfully appropriated, acquired, or otherwise exercised control
over a pack of earrings valued at less than $50 from Wal-Mart Supercenter, and (2)
appellant failed to complete a court-ordered program at the Lubbock County Community
Correction Facility. At the revocation hearing, appellant pled not true to the violations, and
after hearing the evidence, the court concluded he had violated the terms of his community
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
2
supervision. The court immediately revoked the order of community supervision, and
imposed the original sentence of two years confinement.
By his Anders brief, counsel raises the issue of whether there was legally and
factually sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that appellant violated the terms and
conditions of his community supervision. Although counsel raises the issue of sufficiency,
appellate review of a revocation order is limited to determ ining whether the trial court
abused its discretion. Cardona v. State, 665 S.W .2d 492, 493 (Tex.Cr.App. 1984); Jackson
v. State, 645 S.W .2d 303, 305 (Tex.Cr.App. 1983). In a revocation proceeding, the State
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant violated a condition of
community supervision. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex.Cr.App. 1993). One
sufficient ground for revocation will support the trial court’s order. Moore v. State, 605
S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980).
In the present case, the court heard testimony from the Wal-Mart undercover
security employee who apprehended appellant. The employee testified he observed
appellant remove the earrings from the jewelry department, move to the electronics
department and attempt to put on one of the earrings, move to the shoe department and
use a mirror to assist him in putting on the earring, and then walk out the front door without
purchasing the merchandise. He further testified that when he confronted appellant
outside the store, appellant admitted to taking the earrings and offered to pay for them.
The court also heard from appellant’s community supervision officer who testified appellant
3
failed to complete the Lubbock County Community Correction Facility program
successfully. The trial judge was the exclusive judge of the credibility of the witnesses and
the weight to be given to their testimony. Mattias v. State, 731 S.W.2d 936, 940
(Tex.Cr.App. 1987). Based on the evidence presented, we do not find the court’s
conclusion that appellant committed the alleged violations to be an abuse of discretion.
We have also made an independent examination of the entire record to determine
whether there are any arguable grounds which might support this 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 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