Opinion filed Decem ber 9 , 202 1



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _

_____ 

### No. 11

- 2 1

- 00 0 96

- C R

_____ __ ____ 

### ORLANDO ORTEGA NEVAREZ , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 161s t 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 T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(F) (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 five years , and also assessed a fine and restitution

. Approximately

seven months later, t he State filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt

. The trial
court conducted a hearing on the State’s m otion ; at the hearing, Appellant pleaded2 true to the allegation s in the State’s motion to adjudicate

. T he trial court accepted Appellant’s plea of true, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated Appellant guilty of the charged offense, assessed h is punishment at co nfinement 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 pr ovided A ppellant 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 A ppellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s br ief . 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 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 c ounsel’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 p roof of one violation of the terms and conditions of community superv ision 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 proceeding3 may not be raised in a subsequent appeal from the revocation of communi ty 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 f or appeal exist. 1 The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is
affirmed

.

PER CURIAM

Decem ber 9 , 202 1 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J., Trotte r , J., and Will iams , 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.