NO. 07-12-0333-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

JANUARY 3, 2013

______________________________

SKYLER DANE FERGUSON, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

NO. B 18004-0904; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In July 2011, Appellant, Skyler Dane Ferguson, was placed on deferred 

adjudication community supervision for eight years for possession of methamphetamine 

in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200.

1

 The State moved to proceed 

with an adjudication of guilt in early 2012 and following a hearing, notwithstanding the 

trial court’s finding that Appellant had violated the terms and conditions of community 

 1

TEXAS HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(d) (WEST 2010).
2

supervision, she was continued on community supervision with modified terms. Later in 

2012, the State again moved to proceed with an adjudication of guilt for violations of her

new terms and conditions of community supervision. Following a hearing at which 

Appellant entered a plea of true to the allegations, the trial court heard evidence and 

adjudicated her guilty of the original offense and assessed punishment at ten years 

confinement and a fine of $10,000. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an 

Anders2 brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel=s motion and 

affirm.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a 

conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no 

potentially plausible basis to support an appeal. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 

744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 

(Tex.Crim.App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling 

authorities, the appeal is frivolous. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 

(Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated that he has complied with the 

requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to 

Appellant, (2) notifying her of her right to file a pro se response if she desired to do so, 

and (3) informing her of her right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408.3

 By letter, this Court granted Appellant an opportunity to 

 2

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

3

Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of her right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review 

upon execution of the Trial Court=s Certification of Defendant=s Right of Appeal, counsel must comply 

with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within five 
3

exercise her right to file a response to counsel=s brief, should she be so inclined. Id. at 

409 n.23. Appellant did not file a response. Neither did the State favor us with a brief.

By the Anders brief, counsel candidly concedes there are no arguable issues to 

present to this Court. We review an appeal from a trial court's order adjudicating guilt in 

the same manner as a revocation hearing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, 

§ 5(b) (WEST SUPP. 2012). When reviewing an order revoking community supervision 

imposed under an order of deferred adjudication, the sole question before this Court is 

whether the trial court abused its discretion. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 

(Tex.Crim.App. 2006); Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984); 

Jackson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983). In a revocation 

proceeding, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the 

probationer violated a condition of community supervision as alleged in the motion. 

Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). If the State fails to meet its 

burden of proof, the trial court abuses its discretion in revoking community supervision. 

Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 494. 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. 

Jones v. State, 589 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979). Additionally, a plea of true 

standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court=s revocation order. Moses v. State, 

590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979). 

 

days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together with 

notification of her right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 

408 n.22 & at 411 n.35.
4

We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there 

are any non-frivolous issues which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 

U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409;

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We have found no such 

issues. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). After reviewing 

the record and counsel=s brief, we agree with counsel that there are no plausible 

grounds for appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). 

Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the trial court’s

judgment is affirmed. 

Patrick A. Pirtle

 Justice

Do not publish.