Opinion filed January 16, 2020



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 19

- 00 226

- CR

__________ ANGEL ANTHONY CANTU , Appellant
V

. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 2 9th District Court Palo Pinto County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 15494

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant, Angel Anthony Cantu
, originally pleaded guilty to the state jail felony offense of possession of a controlled substance , methamphetamine, in an amount of less than one gram . Pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement, the trial

court convicted Appellant
, assessed his punishment at confinement in a state jail facility for two years and a $1,500 fine
, suspended the imposition of confinement
, and p laced Appellant on community supervision for f ive years

. T he State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision. At a2 hearing on the motion , Appellant pleaded not true to the alleg ations, and the State called three witnesses to testify in support of the motion

. The trial court found all
but one of the State’s allegations to be true, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and imposed the original sentence of confinement in a sta te jail facility
for two years and a fine of $1,500

. We affirm

. Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to
withdraw as counsel on appeal

. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and
concludes that th ere are no arguable issues to present in this appeal

. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief
, a co py of the motion to withdraw , and

a form motion for pro se access to the record

. Couns el advised Appellant of his right
to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a petition for discre tionary review with the clerk of
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court

. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P

. 68

. 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); and Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

. A ppellant has not filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief

. F ollowing the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is frivolous

. The record reflects that the State called three witnesses and presented exhibits in support of the allegations i n the
motion to revoke

. We note that p roof of one violation of the terms and conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support revocation. See Smith v. State
, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Furthermore, absent a void judgment, issues relating to an original plea proceeding may not be raised in a subsequent appeal from the revocation of community supervision and adjudication of guilt.3 Jordan v. State , 54 S.W.3d 783, 785

– 86 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 01); Manuel v. State
, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661

– 62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Based upon our review of the record, we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1 The motion to withdraw is granted , and the judgment of the trial court is
affirm ed.

PER CURIAM

January 16, 2020 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J. 2 Willson, J., not participating.

1 We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.

2 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.