Robert Allen Hollon v. State

11th Court of Appeals Eastland, Texas Opinion Robert Allen Hollon Appellant Vs. No. 11-02-00255-CR B Appeal from Nolan County State of Texas Appellee This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision. The trial court convicted appellant, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated assault. The trial court assessed punishment at confinement for 8 years and a $500 fine. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the imposition of the sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on community supervision for 5 years. At the hearing on the State=s fist amended motion to revoke, appellant entered a plea of true to the State=s 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 8 years and a $500 fine. We affirm. Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he states that, after a professional evaluation of the record, he has concluded that the record does not support any grounds that would sustain the appeal. Following the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969), counsel presents two arguable issues and four Apossible@ issues. In his two arguable issues, counsel argues that the trial court erred in revoking community supervision because there was evidence of inability to pay and that the evidence at the revocation hearing was insufficient to support the revocation. In three of the possible issues, counsel challenges the admission of a photograph, the failure of the trial court to order a presentence investigation report, and trial counsel=s failure to request a presentence investigation report. These three issues deal with the trial on the merits and not the revocation of community supervision. The final possible issue concerns the effectiveness of trial counsel at the revocation stage of the proceedings. In a community supervision revocation hearing, the State has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a condition of community supervision has been violated. Jenkins v. State, 740 S.W.2d 435 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). The trial court is the trier of the facts and determines the weight and credibility of the testimony. Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Barnett v. State, 615 S.W.2d 220 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). Appellate review of an order revoking community supervision is limited to the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion. Flournoy v. State, 589 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). Appellant entered pleas of true to the allegations that he violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision by testing positive for amphetamine; by failing to report as ordered for 16 months; by failing to pay his monthly fees as ordered for 26 months; and by failing to pay court costs, attorney=s fees, and his fine as ordered for 26 months. 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.Cr.App.1980); Taylor v. State, 604 S.W.2d 175 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). A plea of true alone is sufficient to support the trial court=s determination to revoke. Moses v. State, supra; Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). Both arguable issues are overruled. The first three possible issues challenge events which occurred at the trial on the merits when appellant was found guilty and placed on community supervision. Collateral attacks on the original conviction cannot be raised in the appeal from the subsequent revocation of community supervision. Traylor v. State, 561 S.W.2d 492 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Burrell v. State, 492 S.W.2d 482 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). The first three possible issues are overruled. In the final possible issue, the general representation by trial counsel at the revocation hearing is challenged as being ineffective. The record does not support this contention. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770 (Tex.Cr.App.1999). The fourth possible issue is overruled. Counsel has furnished appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. A pro se brief has not been filed. Counsel has complied with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, supra; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); and Gainous v. State, supra. Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record. We agree that the appeal is without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. PER CURIAM June 18, 2003 Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and Wright, J., and McCall, J.