Opinion filed January 18, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-22-00282-CR

__________

RODOLFO SANCHEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 70th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. A-18-1711-CR

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

Appellant, Rodolfo Sanchez, originally pled guilty to the third-degree felony 

offense of failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements. See TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 62.051 (West Supp. 2023), art. 62.102 (West 2018).

On June 16, 2020, pursuant to the terms of a negotiated plea agreement between 

Appellant and the State, the trial court deferred finding Appellant guilty, and placed 
2

him on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of five years. As 

conditions of his community supervision, Appellant was required, among other 

things, to follow all state and federal laws, report to his community supervision 

officer as instructed, and pay a $1,000 fine and court costs.

The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community 

supervision and to adjudicate his guilt, alleging that Appellant “failed to abstain from 

the use of drugs . . . to wit: Cocaine.” On October 10, 2022, the trial court held a 

hearing on the State’s motion, during which Appellant pled “true” to this allegation

and asked the trial court to continue his community supervision. Upon the 

conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found the sole violation alleged in the 

State’s motion to be “true,” adjudicated Appellant guilty, revoked his community 

supervision, and assessed Appellant’s punishment at eight years’ imprisonment in 

the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this 

court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and 

conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are 

no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of 

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

the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his

right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief and of his right to 

file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Therefore, 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).
3

Although granted an extension, Appellant has not filed a pro se response to 

counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, 

we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without 

merit. Here, Appellant pled “true” to the sole allegation in the State’s motion, which 

the trial court accepted and found to be “true.” We note that proof of one violation 

of the terms and conditions of a probationer’s community supervision is sufficient 

to support the trial court’s revocation order. Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1980); Jones v. State, 472 S.W.3d 322, 324 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2015, pet. ref’d). 

In this regard, a plea of “true” standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s 

decision to revoke a probationer’s community supervision. See Garcia v. State, 387 

S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. 

Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Therefore, based on our review of the record, we 

agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist.1

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

judgment of the trial court.

W. STACY TROTTER

JUSTICE

January 18, 2024

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

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

1

We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.