Opinion filed December 11 , 201 4



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

____ _ _

_ _____ 

### No. 11

- 1 4

- 00 106

- C R

_____ __ _____ 

### JAIME MOLINA, JR. , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 70 th District Court
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No

. A

- 40,830

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Pursuant to a plea agreement, Jaime Molina, Jr. pleaded guilty in June 2013
to the third

- degree felony offense of assault family violence. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt
, placed Appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for a term of three years, and assessed a fine of $1,000. In November 2013, the State filed a motion to proceed to an adjudication of guilt based upon
five alleged violations by Appellant of the terms and conditions of his community2 supervision. At a hearing on the motion, Appellant pleaded “true” to all the alleg ed violations. After receiving evidence, the trial court found all the State’s allegations to b e true, adjudicated Appellant guilty of the charged offense, and assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement for ten years and a fine of $619. 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 she has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided A ppellant with a copy of the motion to
wi thdraw, the brief, the reporter’s record, the supplemental reporter’s record, the clerk’s record, the supplemental clerk’s record, and a motion for pro se access to the appella te record, and counsel has advised A ppellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. A response has not been filed. 1
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 (Te x. 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. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);
Gainous v. S tate , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State , 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2005, no pet.).
Fo llowing the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is witho ut merit
and should be dismissed. Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409. In this regard, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to revoke

1 By letter, this court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief.3 community supervision and to proceed to an adjudication of guilt. See Moses v.
State , 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals see king review by that court. T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 A ppellant that 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 11 , 201 4 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

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