Jesus Maldonado, Jr. v. State

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo ________________________ No. 07-17-00190-CR ________________________ JESUS MALDONADO, JR., APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 222nd District Court

Deaf Smith County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR-15K-206; Honorable Roland Saul, Presiding

October 18, 2017 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.

Pursuant to a plea bargain, in September 2016, Appellant, Jesus Maldonado, Jr., was convicted of possession of less than one gram of methamphetamine and punishment was assessed at twenty-four months confinement in a state jail facility and a $1,000 fine,1 suspended in favor of four years community supervision. On March 24, 2017, the State moved to revoke Appellant’s community supervision for failing to (1) report for December 2016 and January 2017, (2) attend counseling, (3) work on his community service hours, (4) participate in his drug offender education program, and (5) make monthly payments as required by the court’s order imposing the conditions of community supervision. At the hearing on the State’s motion, Appellant entered pleas of true to all five allegations.2 After hearing testimony, the trial court found the allegations to be true and revoked Appellant’s community supervision. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders3 brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We affirm and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.4

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a conscientious examination of the record, and in his opinion, it reflects no potentially plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling authorities, the record supports that conclusion. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated that he has complied with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to Appellant, (2) notifying him of the right to file a pro se response if he desired to do so, and (3) informing him of the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408.5 By letter, this court granted Appellant an opportunity to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief, should he be so inclined. Id. at 409 n.23. Appellant did not file a response. Neither did the State favor us with a brief.

BACKGROUND Appellant, in his early fifties, has health issues that limit his employment opportunities and impede his ability to drive. His wife works and uses their only vehicle for transportation.

When Appellant was placed on community supervision, he had difficulties reporting to his community supervision officer and completing required classes. He also experienced financial hardship with some of the classes required under the conditions of his community supervision. Although he claimed to have filed paperwork to be declared indigent for some of the programs, he was unaware if his community supervision officer had followed through.

STANDARD OF REVIEW When reviewing the revocation of community supervision, the sole question before this court is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). In a revocation proceeding, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the probationer violated a condition of community supervision as alleged in the motion to revoke. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). When more than one violation of the conditions of community supervision is alleged, the evidence need show only one violation to support the revocation order. Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The trial court abuses its discretion in revoking community supervision if, as to every ground alleged, the State fails to meet its burden of proof. Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 494. In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a revocation, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Jones v. State, 589 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). Additionally, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support the trial court=s revocation order. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).

ANALYSIS By the Anders brief, counsel reviews the record from the revocation hearing and candidly concedes he finds no arguable issues to advance on appeal. He acknowledges that Appellant’s pleas of true to the allegations and his testimony admitting his failures to comply with the conditions of community supervision foreclose any plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction.

We have also independently examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have found no such issues. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree with counsel that there is no plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

CONCLUSION Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed and counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.

Patrick A. Pirtle

Justice Do not publish.