Opinion filed December 9, 2021

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-21-00096-CR

___________

ORLANDO ORTEGA NEVAREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 161st District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. B-20-0141-CR

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, Orlando Ortega Nevarez, originally pleaded guilty to the offense

of theft of less than $20,000 worth of copper, a state jail felony. See TEX. PENAL 

CODE ANN. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(F) (West 2019). Pursuant to the terms of the plea 

agreement, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt, placed Appellant on community 

supervision for five years, and also assessed a fine and restitution. Approximately 

seven months later, the State filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt. The trial 

court conducted a hearing on the State’s motion; at the hearing, Appellant pleaded 
2

true to the allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate. The trial court accepted 

Appellant’s plea of true, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated

Appellant guilty of the charged offense, assessed his punishment at confinement for

eighteen months in a state jail facility and a fine of $1,050.00, and ordered that 

Appellant pay the restitution that was still owed—$15,631.25. 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 his right 

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

Appellant of his 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 
3

may not be raised in a subsequent appeal from the revocation of community 

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

December 9, 2021

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

1

We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.