Jamey L. Doane v. State ( 2000 )

NUMBER 13-00-191-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

JAMEY L. DOANE

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Chief Justice Seerden and Justices Dorsey and Yañez

Opinion by Chief Justice Seerden

Jamey L. Doane, appellant, appeals the revocation of his community supervision.⁽¹⁾ Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he concludes that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.⁽²⁾ The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), that counsel present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

The State alleged numerous separate bases upon which appellant's community supervision should be revoked, including: failure to keep gainful employment in a lawful occupation; failure to pay restitution; and failure to pay the required supervisory fee. Appellant pled true to all counts. The trial court administered the proper admonishments and appellant acknowledged that he understood the admonishments. The State introduced a stipulation to evidence signed by appellant and appellant's judicial confession.

A trial court is vested with discretion to revoke an individual's community supervision. Herrera v. State, 951 S.W.2d 197 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1997, no pet.). Violation of a single condition of community supervision is sufficient to support a trial court's decision to revoke. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). After considering all the evidence, the court may revoke community supervision if the State proves the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Battle v. State, 571 S.W.2d 20, 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Standing alone, a plea of true is sufficient to support the trial court's order of revocation. See Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Rivera v. State, 688 S.W.2d 659, 660 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1985, no pet.). Appellant pled true to all allegations. Accordingly, the State has satisfied its burden.

The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

ROBERT J. SEERDEN, Chief Justice

Do not publish

.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this 31st day of August, 2000.

1. Appellant pled guilty to burglary. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a) (Vernon 1999).

2. A copy of counsel's brief has been delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.