Opinion filed December 8 , 2016



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _ _ __ ____ No. 11

- 1 6

- 00 1 92

- C R

_____ __ _ __ ___
PRESLEY LOPEZ , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 358 t h District Court

E ctor 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 . P ursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, th e trial court deferred

a finding of guilt and placed Appellant on community supervision for t wo years

. T he State subsequently filed a motion to proceed with an adjudicat ion of Appellant’s guilt

. At a hearing on the State’s motion
, t he t rial court found four of the State’s five allegation s to be true
, revoked Appellant’s community supervision
, adjudicated h er2

guilty of the charged offense, and assessed h er punishment at confinement in a state jail facility for two years

. We dismiss the appeal. Appe llant’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

. C ounsel has provided A ppellant 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 A ppellant of h er 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 Sch ulman , 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 p roof of one violation of the terms and conditions of community supervision is sufficie nt to support revocation. Smith v. State , 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
The record from the adjudica tion hearing shows that the State presented testimony

1 T his court granted Appellant thir ty 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 h er community supervision as alleged in the State’s motion to adjudicat e. The defense rested without calling any witnesses. Based upon our review of the record, we agree with counsel that no argu able grounds for appeal exist.
We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise A ppellant 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 repres enting 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 A ppellant 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

December 8 , 2016 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J.