Opinion filed December 13, 2013

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-13-00175-CR

__________

ISAAC 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

2012, the State filed a motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt, alleging 

multiple violations of the terms and conditions of community supervision. The 

trial court heard the motion to proceed on February 28, 2013. Appellant pleaded 
2

“true” to one of the alleged violations. Upon receiving evidence, the trial court 

found all of the alleged violations to be true and adjudicated Appellant 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 Appellant with a copy of the brief and 

advised Appellant 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 Anders 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 reviewed 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 supervision 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 Appellant that he may 

file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of 

 1

By letter, this court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to 

counsel’s brief. 
3

Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. 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 petition 

for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises Appellant 

that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

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

PER CURIAM

December 13, 2013

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.