Opinion filed December 1 3 , 201 3



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 13

- 00175

- C R

__________

IS A AC ELIO FLORES , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 132nd District Court Scurry County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No . 9929

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Isaac Elio Flores pleaded guilty in September 2012 to theft

. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt
, placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for a term of five years , and assessed a fine of $1,500. In October
201 2 , the State filed a motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt
, alleging multiple violation s of the terms and conditions of commun ity supervision. The
trial court heard the motion to proceed on February 28, 2013

. Appellant pleaded2 “true” to one of the alleged violation s . Upon receiving evidence, the trial court
found all of the alleged violations to be true and adjudicated A ppellan t guilty of the charged offense . The trial court subsequently assessed his punishment at
confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
for a term of two years

. We dismiss the appeal. 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 he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous . Counsel has provided A ppellant with a copy of the b r ief and
advised A ppellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s
brief. A response has not been filed. 1 Court

- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Ander s v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman
, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); 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); and Eaden v. State , 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2005, no pet.). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewe d the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit
and should be dismissed. Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409. In this regard, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to revoke community su pervision and proceed with an adjudication of guilt. See Moses v.
State , 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of

1 By letter, this c ourt granted Appellant thir ty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel ’ s brief

.3 Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se pe tition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68. The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURI AM

December 1 3 , 2013 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson , J

. , and Bailey, J.