Katrina Elaine Hoskins v. State

Opinion

Opinion filed June 29, 2006

Opinion filed June 29, 2006

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                          No. 11-06-00007-CR

                              KATRINA ELAINE HOSKINS, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                        STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                          On Appeal from the 29th District Court

                                                       Palo Pinto County, Texas

                                                    Trial Court Cause No. 11822

                                                                   O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision.  We affirm.

Originally, Katrina Elaine Hoskins entered a plea of guilty to the offense of burglary of a building.  The trial court deferred the adjudication of her guilt, placed her on community supervision for four years, and assessed a $1,500 fine.  After a hearing on the State=s motion to adjudicate, the trial court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of her community supervision, revoked her community supervision, adjudicated her guilt, and assessed her punishment at confinement for two years and a $1,500 fine.  The trial court then suspended the imposition of the confinement portion of the sentence and placed appellant on Aregular@ community supervision for five years.  At the hearing on the State=s amended motion to revoke Aregular@ community supervision, appellant entered pleas of true to five of the State=s seven allegations.  The trial court found the allegations to be true, revoked appellant=s community supervision, and sentenced her to confinement for two years in a state jail facility.

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 she has concluded 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.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, in a community supervision revocation hearing, 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 v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).  A plea of true alone is sufficient to support the trial court=s determination to revoke.  Moses, 590 S.W.2d 469; Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).

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

PER CURIAM

June 29, 2006

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

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J., and

McCall, J., and Strange, J.