Opinion filed June 13 , 2019



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _

_____ 

### No. 11

- 1 8

- 00 356

- C R

_____ __ ____ 

### OLIVIA NICOLE BLANFORD , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 70 t h District Court Ect or County, Texas Trial Court Cause No

. A

- 35,381

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant, Olivia Nicole Blanford
, originally pleaded guilty to the first

- degree felony offense of injury to a child

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 22.04(a)(1), (e) (West 2019 ). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, th e trial court deferred a finding of guilt
, placed Appellant on community supervision for ten years , and imposed a fine of $ 1,0 00

. T he State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt

. At a hearing on th at motion
, Appellant pleaded true to the
State’s sole allegation

. T he trial court found the allegation to be true
, revoked2 Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated Appellant guilty of the charged offense, conducted a punishment hearing, and assessed Appellant’s punishment at
confinement for twenty

- five years and a fine of $865

— the remainder of the previously assessed fine

. We affirm

. 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 this appeal is frivolous and without merit . Counsel has provided A ppellant with a copy
of t he brief , a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of
the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record

. Counsel advised A ppellant of h er right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief . Counsel also advised Appell ant of h er right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review in order to seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68. Court

appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386
U.S. 738 (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 response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following t he procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit

. We note that p roof of one violation of the terms and conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support revocation. Smith v. State , 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). 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. [Panel Op.] 1979). Furthermore, absent a void judgment, issues relating to an original plea proceeding may not be raised in a subsequent appeal from the revocation of community3 supervision and adj udication of guilt. Jordan v. State , 54 S.W.3d 783, 785

– 86 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Manuel v. State , 994 S.W.2d 658, 661

– 62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Based upon our review of the record, we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1 The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is
affirmed

.

PER CURIAM

June 13 , 2019 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J., Stretcher , J., and Wright, S.C.J. 2

Willson, J., not participating.

1 We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.

2 Jim R. Wright, Senior C hief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.