Opinion filed June 13, 2019

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-18-00356-CR

___________

OLIVIA NICOLE BLANFORD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 70th District Court

Ector 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 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04(a)(1), (e) 

(West 2019). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court deferred a 

finding of guilt, placed Appellant on community supervision for ten years, and

imposed a fine of $1,000. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate 

Appellant’s guilt. At a hearing on that motion, Appellant pleaded true to the 

State’s sole allegation. The trial court found the allegation to be true, revoked 
2

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 Appellant with a copy 

of the 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 Appellant of her right 

to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised 

Appellant of her right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review in order to 

seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX.R. APP. P. 68. Courtappointed 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 the 

procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the 

record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit. We note that proof 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 community 
3

supervision and adjudication 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 TEX. R. APP. 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 TEX. R.

APP. P. 68.

2

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.