Raymond Lee Allen v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 16, 2003
• Docket: 09-02-00492-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-02-492 CR

RAYMOND LEE ALLEN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 83817

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Raymond Lee Allen pleaded guilty to the state jail felony offense of delivery of a controlled substance. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112 (Vernon 2003). The trial court convicted and sentenced Allen to two years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, State Jail Division. In a subsequent proceeding, the trial court suspended imposition of the sentence and placed Allen on community supervision for five years, beginning November 13, 2001. On September 16, 2002, Allen pleaded true to allegations that he violated the terms of the community supervision order. The trial court entered a revocation order and imposed a sentence of eighteen months of confinement in a state jail facility.

Appellate counsel filed a brief that concludes no arguable error is presented in this appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On March 20, 2003, Allen was given an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant. Because the appeal involves the application of well-settled principles of law, we deliver this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

Issues relating to the conviction may be raised only in an appeal taken when community supervision is originally imposed. See Whetstone v. State, 786 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990), overruled in part on other grounds by Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). In the appeal of an order revoking community supervision, the only question presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the appellant's community supervision. Jackson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). Allen pleaded "true" to three allegations contained in the State's motion to revoke. The trial court acted within its discretion.

We have reviewed the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and find no arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on June 30, 2003

Opinion Delivered July 16, 2003

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.