From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thompson v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District, Eastland
Jun 21, 2007
No. 11-06-00278-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 21, 2007)

Opinion

No. 11-06-00278-CR

Opinion filed June 21, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

On Appeal from the 114th District Court, Smith County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 241-0721-00.

Panel consists of: WRIGHT, C.J., MCCALL, J., and STRANGE, J.


OPINION


This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision. The trial court convicted Rita Thompson, upon her plea of guilty, of theft by check and assessed her punishment at confinement for two years. However, the imposition of the sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on community supervision for five years. At the hearing on the State(s motion to revoke, appellant entered a plea of true to the allegation that she violated the terms and conditions of her community supervision by consuming marihuana. 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 the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of her 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.(Eastland 2005, no pet.). Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit. 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). We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that she may file a petition for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). Likewise, this court advises appellant that she may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 66. Black v. State, 217 S.W.3d 687 (Tex.App.(Eastland 2007, no pet.). The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

Thompson v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District, Eastland
Jun 21, 2007
No. 11-06-00278-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 21, 2007)
Case details for

Thompson v. State

Case Details

Full title:RITA THOMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District, Eastland

Date published: Jun 21, 2007

Citations

No. 11-06-00278-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 21, 2007)