Opinion filed February 3, 2022

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-21-00100-CR

__________

JOHNATHAN ROBERT WIMBERLEY, Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 90th District Court

Stephens County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F35901

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

Appellant, Johnathan Robert Wimberley, originally pled guilty to the offense 

of engaging in organized criminal activity. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 71.02(a)

(West Supp. 2021). Pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement, the trial court deferred 

a finding of guilt, placed Appellant on community supervision for a term of four

years, and assessed a fine of $3,000. Approximately six months later, the State filed 
2

a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt. The trial court conducted a hearing on the 

State’s motion; at the hearing, Appellant pled true to five of the allegations in the 

State’s motion to adjudicate and not true to three of the allegations. After hearing 

evidence, the trial court found five allegations to be true,1 adjudicated Appellant

guilty of the charged offense, and assessed his punishment at twenty-five years’ 

confinement and a fine of $3,000. 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 the 

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 

both the reporter’s record and the clerk’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 filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant

contends (1) that the State did not have sufficient evidence to support the indictment,

(2) that the attorney appointed to represent him on the motion to adjudicate did not 

have adequate time to prepare for the hearing, (3) that the trial court did not allow 

him to retain an attorney, (4) that his trial counsel at the time of the original plea had 

1

We note that the trial court found (1) that four allegations to which Appellant pled true and one 

allegation to which Appellant pled not true were “true” and (2) that two allegations to which Appellant pled

not true and one allegation to which Appellant pled true were “not true.”
3

a conflict of interest because that counsel was appointed to represent multiple people 

on the same indictment, (5) that his community supervision was revoked based on a 

finding that he committed a new offense on which he was never indicted or tried,

and (6) that the other alleged violations of the conditions of community supervision 

were proved to have occurred due to COVID or to two misdemeanor charges that 

were dismissed. We have considered the assertions made by Appellant in his pro se 

response. However, in addressing an Anders brief, a court of appeals may only 

determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that 

it has reviewed the record and found no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds 

for appeal exists and remand the case to the trial court so that new counsel may be 

appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 

S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

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 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. 1990). Based on our review of the record, we agree with 

counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist.2

2

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.
4

Accordingly, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm 

the judgment of the trial court.

 

PER CURIAM

February 3, 2022

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.