Opinion filed September 19 , 202 4



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No. 11

- 2 4

- 0015 7

- CR

__________ 

### BRANDON HENDRICK PRESSLEY , A ppellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3 Tarrant County , Texas 1 Trial Court Cause No

. 158 9482 D

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant, Brandon Hendrick Pressley , pleaded guilty to the second

- degree felony offense of assaul t by impeding the breath or circulation of A.P., 2 a person

1 This appeal was transferred to this court from the Second Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Texas Supreme Court. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001 (West Supp. 2023 ). W e decide this case in accordance with the precedent of the Second Court of Appeal s under the principles of stare decisis. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 41.3.
2 We use initials herein to identify the victim. See T EX

. C ONST . art. I, § 30 (a)(1) (granting crime victims the “right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process ”)

.2 with whom he had a dating relationship , having been previously convicted of an offense involving family violence. See T EX

. P ENAL C OD E A NN . § 2 2 .0 1(a)(1), (b

- 2 ) (West Supp. 2023 ) ; T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN . § 71.0021(b) (West 2019 )

. On November 18, 2019, p ursuant to the terms of a negotiated plea agreement between Appellant and the State, the trial court deferred finding Appellant guilty and placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of two years. As a condition of community supervision , Appellant was required t o rep ort “no less than monthly” to the Community Supervision and Corrections Department of Tarrant County. The State subsequently moved to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt and revoke his community supervision , alleging that he failed to report as required by his conditions
of community supervision. On April 11, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the
State’s motion, during which Appellant pleaded “true” to the allegation. Appellant explained that he left Texas shortly after being placed on community supervision due to health issues and his inability to find housing. T he trial court found the
violation to be “true , ” adjudicated Appellant guilty, revoked his community supervision, and assessed his punishment at confinement for six years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

. Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this

c ourt. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a cop y of the brief, a cop y of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record

. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief , and of his right t o file a petition for discretionary review. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 68. As such , c ourt

- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 7383 (1967); Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel ’ s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit. Here, Appellant pleaded “true” to the single violation alleged in the State’s motion, which the trial court accepted and found to be “true.” Proof of one violation of the terms and conditions of a probationer’s community supervision is sufficient to support the trial court’s
order of revocation. Smith v. State , 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009);
Sanchez v. State , 603 S.W.2d 869 , 871 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Jones v. State , 472 S.W. 3d 322, 324 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2015, pet. ref’d). In th at regard, a plea of “true,” standing alone, is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to revoke a probationer’s community supervision. See Garcia v. State , 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Moses v. State , 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Therefore, based on our review of the record, we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 3 However, the judgment contains a nonreversible error requiring modification.
See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 43.2(b); Bigley v. State , 865 S.W.2d 26, 27

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (concluding that the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure empower courts of appeals to reform judgments); see also Rhodes v. State , 676 S.W.3d 228, 235 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14 th Dist.] 2023, no pet.) (collecting cases). The trial court was required to pronounce the sentence, including a fine, in Appellant’s presence. See
T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P RO C

. A NN

. art. 42.03 (West Supp. 2023); Taylor v. State , 131 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Here, t he trial court did not orally

3 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.4 pronounce a fine at sentencing, but t he judgment orders Appellant to pay a $200 fine. When there is a variation between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. Coffey v. State , 979 S.W.2d 326,
328

– 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). B ecause the trial court did not assess a fine as part of Appellant ’s sentence , we have the necessary information for reformation. We therefore modify the trial court’s judgment to delete the $200 fine

. See Taylor , 131
S.W.3d at 502. Accordingly, w e grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm the judgment
of the trial court as modified

.

JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE

September 19 , 202 4 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b)

. Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trott er , J. , and Will iams , J.