Opinion filed April 26, 2012

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-11-00281-CR

__________

LARRIEL PETRICE McDONALD, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 368th 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 2010 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 2011, the State filed a motion to 

proceed with an adjudication of guilt, alleging multiple violations 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 violations, and the State abandoned the remaining 

alleged violations. The trial court found the remaining allegation to be true, adjudicated 

appellant guilty of the charged offense, and assessed her punishment at confinement in the State 
2

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

the appeal.

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 the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has 

provided appellant with a copy of the brief 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. 1974); 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 reviewed 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 community 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 she may file a petition 

for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review 

by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on 

appeal shall, within five days after the 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 she may file a 

petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

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

PER CURIAM

April 26, 2012

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.

 

1By letter, this court granted appellant thirty days in which to exercise her right to file a response to counsel’s brief.