O pinion filed February 3 , 202 2



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No. 11

- 2 1

- 00 100

- C R

__________ 

### JOHNATHAN ROBERT WIMBERLEY , A ppellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 90 th District Court Stephens County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F3590 1

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant, Johnathan Robert Wimberley , originally ple d guilty to the offense
of engaging in organized criminal activity

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 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 la ter, t he State filed2 a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt. The trial court conducted a hearing on the State’s motion; at the hearing, Appellant ple d true to five of the allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate and not true to three of the allegations. After hearing evidence, t he trial court found five allegations to be true, 1 adjudicated Appellant guilty of the charged offense , and assessed h is 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
examine s 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 report er’s record and the clerk’s record. Counsel advise d 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68

. Court

appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 ( 19 67); 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 t o retain an attorney , (4) that his trial counsel at the time of the original plea had

1 W e note that the trial court found (1) that f our allegations to which Appellant ple d true and one allegation to which Appellant ple d not true were “true” and (2) that two allegations to which Appellant ple d not true and one allegation to which Appellant ple d 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
f

inding 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 assertion s 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 r ecord 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

suppo rt 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 pr oceeding 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 A p pellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.4 Accordingly, w e 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 W illiams , J

.