Opinion filed December 11, 2014

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ____________

No. 11-14-00106-CR

____________

JAIME MOLINA, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 70th 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 community 
2

supervision. At a hearing on the motion, Appellant pleaded “true” to all the 

alleged violations. After receiving evidence, the trial court found all the State’s 

allegations to be 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 Appellant with a copy of the motion to 

withdraw, 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 appellate record, and counsel has advised Appellant 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 (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. 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. 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 Appellant that he 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 he 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 11, 2014

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.