Opinion filed January 16, 2020

 

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-19-00226-CR

__________

ANGEL ANTHONY CANTU, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 29th 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 placed Appellant on community supervision for five years. The State

subsequently filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision. At a
2

hearing on the motion, Appellant pleaded not true to the allegations, 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 state 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 there are no arguable issues to present in this appeal. Counsel 

provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, and

a form motion for pro se access to the record. Counsel 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 discretionary review with the clerk of 

the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. See TEX. R.

APP. 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). 

Appellant has not filed a 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 frivolous. The record reflects that the State 

called three witnesses and presented exhibits in support of the allegations in the 

motion to revoke. We note that proof 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. 2001); 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 

affirmed.

PER CURIAM

January 16, 2020

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. 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 TEX. R.

APP. P. 68.

2

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

sitting by assignment.