Mark Carl Davis v. State of Texas ( 2002 )

                                                             11th Court of Appeals

                                                                  Eastland, Texas

                                                                        Opinion

Mark Carl Davis

Appellant

Vs.       Nos. 11-01-00180-CR & 11-01-00181-CR B Appeals from Palo Pinto County

State of Texas

Appellee

These are appeals from judgments revoking appellant=s community supervision.  Appellant  was originally convicted, upon his pleas of guilty, of two offenses of felony driving while intoxicated.  Plea bargain agreements were reached.  The trial court assessed appellant=s punishment in each case at confinement for 10 years and a $1,500 fine.  The confinement portion of each sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on community supervision for 10 years.  At the hearing on the State=s amended motions to revoke, appellant entered pleas of true to each of the allegations.  The trial court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision and revoked his community supervision. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreements, the trial court imposed a sentence of confinement for 7 years in each case.  We affirm.

Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in each case in which he states that, after examining the entire record and the applicable law, he has concluded that the appeal is without merit.  In each case, counsel has furnished appellant with a copy of the brief and has advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. Pro se briefs have not been filed. Counsel has complied with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record.  We note that, in a community supervision revocation, a plea of true alone is sufficient to support the trial court=s determination to revoke.  Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).    We agree that the appeals are without merit.

The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

PER CURIAM

January 10, 2002

Do not publish.  See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.3(b).

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., and McCall, J.