Opinion filed April 26 , 201 2



## In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No. 11

- 11

- 0028 1

- C R

__________ LARRIEL PETRICE McDONALD
, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 368 th District Court Williamson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No . 09

- 1560

- K368

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Larriel Petrice McDonald pleaded guilty in February 201 0 to possession of a controlled
substance. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed her on deferred adjudication community supervision for a term of five years. In April 201 1 , the State filed a motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt
, alleging multiple violation s of the terms and conditions of community supervision. The trial court heard the motion to proceed on September 7 , 2011

. Appellant pleaded “true” to one of the alleged violation s , and the State abandoned the remaining alleged violations

. T he trial court found the remaining allegation to be true, adjudicated appellan t guilty of the charged offense, and assessed h er punishment at confinement in the State2

Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of nine months

. We dismiss the appeal.
A ppellant’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 the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the b rief and advised appellant of her right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. A response has not been filed. 1 Court

- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re
Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 197 4); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969);
and Eaden v. State , 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2005, no pet.). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently re

viewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed.
Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409. In this regard, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to revoke comm unity supervision and proceed with an adjudication of guilt. See Moses v. State , 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that s he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after th e opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises appellant that s he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68. The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM April 26 , 2012 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Kalenak , J.

1 By letter, this c ourt granted a ppellant thirty days in which to exercise h er right to file a response to counsel’s brief.