Alan Jon Porter Jr. v. State ( 2006 )

Opinion filed January 26, 2006

Opinion filed January 26, 2006

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                          No. 11-05-00268-CR

                                                    __________

                                 ALAN JON PORTER JR., Appellant

                                                             V.

                                        STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                         On Appeal from the 401st District Court

                                                          Collin County, Texas

                                             Trial Court Cause No. 401-81110-03

                                                                   O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision. Alan Jon Porter Jr. originally entered a plea of guilty to the offense of theft.  The trial court convicted appellant and sentenced appellant to confinement for five years and a $500 fine.  Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the imposition of the confinement portion of the sentence was suspended; and appellant was placed on community supervision for three years.  At the hearing on the State=s motion to revoke, appellant entered pleas of true to the State=s seven allegations that he violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found the allegations to be true, revoked appellant=s community supervision, and imposed the original sentence of confinement for five years. We affirm.

Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw.  The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous.  Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel=s brief.  A response has not been filed.  Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.CEastland 2005, no pet.).

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record; and we agree that the appeal is without merit.  We note that 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. Crim. App. 1979); Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). Moreover, proof of one violation of the terms and conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support the revocation.  McDonald v. State, 608 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Taylor v. State, 604 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Moses, 590 S.W.2d at 469.

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

January 26, 2006

Do not publish.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J., and

McCall, J., and Strange, J.