Opinion filed December 8, 2016

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

_____________

No. 11-16-00192-CR

_____________

PRESLEY LOPEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 358th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. D-45,749

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

Appellant, Presley Lopez, originally pleaded guilty to the state jail felony 

offense of theft. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court deferred 

a finding of guilt and placed Appellant on community supervision for two years.

The State subsequently filed a motion to proceed with an adjudication of Appellant’s 

guilt. At a hearing on the State’s motion, the trial court found four of the State’s five 

allegations to be true, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated her
2

guilty of the charged offense, and assessed her punishment at confinement in a state 

jail facility for two years. 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 and without merit. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy 

of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, a copy of the 

clerk’s record, and a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. Counsel 

also advised Appellant of her right to review the record and file a response to 

counsel’s brief.1 Appellant has filed neither the motion for pro se access to the 

appellate record nor a response to counsel’s brief.

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); Stafford v. State, 

813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. 

App. [Panel Op.] 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. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. 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).

The record from the adjudication hearing shows that the State presented testimony 

 

1This court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise her right to file a response to 

counsel’s brief.
3

about various violations by Appellant of the terms and conditions of her community 

supervision as alleged in the State’s motion to adjudicate. The defense rested 

without calling any witnesses. Based upon our review of the record, we agree with 

counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist.

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

December 8, 2016

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.