Billie Wiggins and Carl Hamilton v. Bruce Barrett, Mitchell Bailey, Elmo J. King, Letha King, David King, Warren King, Elkhart State Bank, Kay Pennington and Neches Hills Property Owners Association--

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 12th District Court of Appeals » 2005 » Billie Wiggins and Carl Hamilton v. Bruce Barrett, Mitchell Bailey, Elmo J. King, Letha King, David King, Warren King, Elkhart State Bank, Kay Pennington and Neches Hills Property Owners Association--

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 12-03-00374-CV

Case Date: 11/02/2005

Plaintiff: Georg Alfred Hawkins

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 199th District Court of Collin County

Preview:Georg Alfred Hawkins v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 199th District Court of Collin County
/**/ 11th Court of Appeals Eastland, Texas Opinion Georg Alfred Hawkins Appellant Vs. No. 11-03-00032-CR Appeal from Collin County State of Texas Appellee This is an appeal from the 2002 judgment revoking regular community supervision. We affirm. In 1993, Georg Alfred Hawkins pleaded guilty to touching his girlfriend s 10-year-old daughter s genitalia with his hand. The trial court convicted appellant of indecency with a child and assessed his punishment at confinement for 10 years and a $1,000 fine. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court suspended the imposition of the confinement portion of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for 5 years. In 1995, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant s community supervision. At the hearing, appellant entered a plea of not true. The trial court determined that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision, and imposed the original sentence of confinement for 10 years. The sentence was imposed on September 11, 1995. On November 15, 1995, appellant filed a motion to continue community supervision. The trial court granted the motion and placed appellant on community supervision for 10 years. The trial court amended or modified the terms and conditions of appellant s community supervision three times in 1997 and once in 2001. In 2001, the State filed a motion to revoke alleging that appellant violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision by failing to avoid access to the Internet, the World Wide Web, or electronic mail as ordered; by failing to participate in a sexual abuse treatment program as ordered; by failing to truthfully answer all inquiries and failing to furnish all information as ordered; by failing to permit his supervision officer to inspect records relating to the use of the Internet, the World Wide Web, or electronic mail as ordered; and by failing to avoid entering into or maintaining any type of agreement for the purpose of accessing the Internet, the World Wide Web, or electronic mail as ordered. Appellant entered a plea of true to the second allegation (failure to participate in sexual abuse treatment program as ordered) and pleas of not true to the remaining allegations. The trial court found all five of the allegations to be true, revoked his community supervision, and imposed a sentence of confinement for five years. Appellant s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he conscientiously examines the entire record, analyzes the applicable law, and concludes that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Counsel has furnished appellant with a copy of the brief and has 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, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); 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, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/7395.html[8/20/2013 7:23:10 PM]

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record. We note that a plea of true alone is sufficient to support the trial court s determination to revoke. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979). Proof of a single violation of the terms and conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support 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, supra. Moreover, appellant s community supervision supervisor testified that appellant committed the alleged violations. The trial court did not abuse its discretion. Flournoy v. State, 589 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). The record before this court supports counsel s conclusions that appellant freely and voluntarily entered his plea of true and that trial counsel provided reasonably effective assistance. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770 (Tex.Cr.App.1999); Stafford v. State, supra at 508-09. We agree that the appeal is without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. January 15, 2004 PER CURIAM Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and Wright, J., and McCall, J.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/7395.html[8/20/2013 7:23:10 PM]

Download 7395.pdf