
<HTML> 

<HEAD> 

<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="WordPerfect 9"> 

<TITLE></TITLE> 

</HEAD> 

<BODY TEXT="#000000" LINK="#0000ff" VLINK="#551a8b" ALINK="#ff0000" BGCOLOR="#c0c0c0"> 

 

<P><CENTER>NO. <A NAME="NO"> 07-03-0167-CR</A></CENTER> 

</P> 

 

<P>					        07-03-0168-CR</P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P><CENTER>IN THE COURT OF APPEALS</CENTER> 

</P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P><CENTER>FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS</CENTER> 

</P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P><CENTER>AT AMARILLO</CENTER> 

</P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P><CENTER>PANEL D</CENTER> 

</P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P><A NAME="DATE"><CENTER>APRIL 7, 2004</A></CENTER> 

</P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P><CENTER>______________________________</CENTER> 

</P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P><CENTER><A NAME="APP">TOBE JOE CARILLO</A>, APPELLANT</CENTER> 

</P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P><CENTER>V.</CENTER> 

</P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P><CENTER><A NAME="APE">THE STATE OF TEXAS</A>, APPELLEE</CENTER> 

</P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P><CENTER>_________________________________</CENTER> 

</P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P><CENTER>FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;</CENTER> 

</P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P><CENTER>NO. B12323-9603; B12324-9603; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE</CENTER> 

</P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P><CENTER>_______________________________</CENTER> 

</P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P>Before QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.</P> 

 

<P><CENTER><STRONG>MEMORANDUM OPINION</STRONG></CENTER> 

</P> 

 

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Arial">	Tobe Joe Carillo appeals the revocation of his community supervision. We affirm 

the revocation.</SPAN></P> 

 

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Arial">	Carillo pleaded guilty on May 2, 1996, to two counts of burglary of a habitation. The 

judge of the 242nd District Court of Hale County sentenced Carillo to ten years 

confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division and a 

$500.00 fine on each count.  The sentences were suspended and Carillo was placed on 

ten years community supervision.  The State filed its first motions to revoke Carillo's 

community supervision in October of 1996. After a hearing, the court continued the 

community supervision but required him to serve ninety days in the county jail and attend 

a Daily Reporting Center Program.</SPAN></P> 

 

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Arial">	The State filed its second motions to revoke Carillo's community supervision on 

September 26, 2002, and on March 10, 2003, amended the motions alleging that he 

violated the conditions of community supervision by committing the offenses of theft, public 

intoxication, failing to report to his community supervision officer, failing to pay his 

probation fees, and failing to report his arrest or detention within 24 hours.</SPAN></P> 

 

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Arial">	On March 18, 2003, after a hearing, Carillo pleaded true to all the allegations 

contained in the State's amended motions, except for an allegation he had committed theft.  

The State deleted the allegation of theft from both motions before appellant entered his 

pleas.  On being questioned by the trial court, </SPAN>appellant stated that he understood the 

potential consequences of his pleas and that he had not been promised anything in 

exchange for his pleas.  Written stipulations of evidence signed and sworn to by Carillo, 

stating that he had committed each of the violations alleged by the State, were admitted in 

evidence. He testified at the hearing and asked the court to continue his community 

supervision.  While on community supervision he had attended college and, at one point, 

assisted the probation department by speaking to other probationers about how to comply 

with the requirements of their probation.  He asked the court to allow him to continue his 

education and provide a home for his three-year-old son. 	The State presented the testimony of Carillo's community supervision officer. At the 

conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found each of the State's allegations true, revoked 

Carillo's community supervision, and sentenced him to ten years confinement in the 

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for both of the offenses, 

with sentences to run concurrently.   He timely filed a notice of appeal.</P> 

 

<P>	Carillo's counsel has filed a brief stating that he has carefully examined the record 

and researched the law, and is unable to find a meritorious error to argue to this Court. The 

brief thoroughly discusses the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion to revoke. 

Counsel concludes that there is no reversible error in this case, and that the appeal is 

frivolous. <EM>See Anders v. California</EM>, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct.1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 

(1967).  Counsel also has filed a motion to withdraw, has provided a copy of his brief to 

Carillo, and by letter informed him of his rights to review the trial record and to file a pro se 

brief.  <EM>See Johnson v. State</EM>, 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex.App.--Waco 1994, pet. ref'd).  By 

letter dated July 21, 2003, this court also notified him of his opportunity to submit a 

response to the <EM>Anders</EM> brief and motion to withdraw filed by his counsel, granting him until 

August 18, 2003, to do so. This court's letter also reminded Carillo to contact the clerk of 

this court or his counsel if he needed to review any part of the appellate record to prepare 

a response.  He has not filed a response.</P> 

 

<P>	In conformity with the standards set out by the United States Supreme Court, we will 

not rule on the motion to withdraw until we have independently examined the record. 

<EM>Nichols v. State</EM>, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1997, no pet.).  If this court 

determines the appeal has merit, we will remand it to the trial court for appointment of new 

counsel.  <EM>See Stafford v. State</EM>, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  </P> 

 

<P>	Appellate review of a revocation order is limited to determining whether the trial court 

abused its discretion.  <EM>Cardona v. State</EM>, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984); 

<EM>Jackson v. State</EM>, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983). The trial court abuses its 

discretion in revoking community supervision if the State fails to meet its burden of proof.  

<EM>Cardona</EM>, 665 S.W.2d at 493-94. <SPAN STYLE="font-family: Arial"> </SPAN></P> 

 

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Arial">	In a revocation proceeding, the State must prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that appellant violated a condition of community supervision as alleged in the 

motion to revoke.  <EM>Cobb v. State</EM>, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993); </SPAN> <EM>Becker v. 

State</EM>, 33 S.W.3d 64, 66 (Tex.App.-El Paso, 2000, no pet.)<SPAN STYLE="font-family: Arial">. The trial judge is the sole trier 

of the facts. <EM>Taylor v. State</EM>, 604 S.W.2d 175, 179 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980). A defendant's plea 

of true to an alleged violation, standing alone, is sufficient to support the revocation. <EM>Moses 

v. State</EM>, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979). </SPAN></P> 

 

<P><A HREF="/cgi-bin/content/showpage.pl?direction=JUMPCITE&cgisite=/cgi-bin/content&dbfile=FT30&State=TEXAS&jumps=2&account=JAMES.CAMPBELL/"></A><A HREF="/cgi-bin/content/showpage.pl?direction=JUMPCITE&cgisite=/cgi-bin/content&dbfile=FT30&State=TEXAS&jumps=2&account=JAMES.CAMPBELL/">	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.  <EM>Jones v. State</EM>, 589 S.W.2d 

419, 421 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979).  Carillo's pleas of true to four alleged violations of the 

conditions of his community supervision in the underlying trial court Cause No. B12324-9603 and to five alleged violations in trial court Cause No. B12323-9603, and the respective 

stipulations of evidence, support the court's judgments.  There is nothing in the record to 

suggest that he was incompetent or that his pleas and stipulations were not made 

knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently. The record contains some evidence in mitigation of 

some of his violations, but when, as here, more than one violation is alleged, proof of any 

one of them is sufficient to support revocation.  <EM>Moore v. State</EM>, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 

(Tex.Crim.App. 1980); <EM>Gobell v. State</EM>, 528 S.W.2d 223 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975); <EM>McCollum 

v. State</EM>, 784 S.W.2d 702, 704-05 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, pet. ref'd).</SPAN></P> 

 

<P><A HREF="  "></A><A></A><A></A><A></A><A></A><A></A><A></A><A></A><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Arial"> 	Our review convinces us that appellate counsel conducted a diligent and 

conscientious review of the record. </SPAN>We have also made an independent examination of the 

entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support the 

appeal.  <EM>See Stafford, </EM>813 S.W.2d at 511. <SPAN STYLE="font-family: Arial"> We agree it presents no meritorious grounds for 

review. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Carillo's community 

supervision. We grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the judgments of the trial 

court.<A HREF="/cgi-bin/content/showpage.pl?direction=JUMPCITE&cgisite=/cgi-bin/content&dbfile=FT30&State=TEXAS&jumps=2&account=JAMES.CAMPBELL/"></A><A HREF="/cgi-bin/content/showpage.pl?direction=JUMPCITE&cgisite=/cgi-bin/content&dbfile=FT30&State=TEXAS&jumps=2&account=JAMES.CAMPBELL/"></A><A HREF="/cgi-bin/content/showpage.pl?direction=JUMPCITE&cgisite=/cgi-bin/content&dbfile=FT30&State=TEXAS&jumps=2&account=JAMES.CAMPBELL/"></A><A HREF="/cgi-bin/content/showpage.pl?direction=JUMPCITE&cgisite=/cgi-bin/content&dbfile=FT30&State=TEXAS&jumps=2&account=JAMES.CAMPBELL/"></A><A HREF="/cgi-bin/content/showpage.pl?direction=JUMPCITE&cgisite=/cgi-bin/content&dbfile=FT30&State=TEXAS&jumps=2&account=JAMES.CAMPBELL/"></A><A HREF="/cgi-bin/content/showpage.pl?direction=JUMPCITE&cgisite=/cgi-bin/content&dbfile=FT30&State=TEXAS&jumps=2&account=JAMES.CAMPBELL/"></A><A HREF="/cgi-bin/content/showpage.pl?direction=JUMPCITE&cgisite=/cgi-bin/content&dbfile=FT30&State=TEXAS&jumps=2&account=JAMES.CAMPBELL/"></A><A HREF="/cgi-bin/content/showpage.pl?direction=JUMPCITE&cgisite=/cgi-bin/content&dbfile=FT30&State=TEXAS&jumps=2&account=JAMES.CAMPBELL/"></A></SPAN></P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Arial">							James T. Campbell</SPAN></P> 

 

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Arial">							        Justice</SPAN></P> 

 

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2"> 

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: Arial">						</SPAN></P> 

 

<P>Do not publish.  </P> 

 

</BODY> 

</HTML> 

