Opinion filed June 28, 2019



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________
No. 11

- 18

- 00293

- CR

__________ TRAVIS BRYAN HICKS , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 50th District Court Knox County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 3992

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant
, Travis Bryan Hicks
, pleaded guilty to the first

- degree felony offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 22.021 (West 2019 ). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court deferred a
findi ng of guilt, placed Appellant on community supervision for ten year s , and assessed a fine of $6,000 . The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate2 Appellant’s guilt. The trial court held a contested hearing on the State’s motion t o adjudicate, found the State’s allegations to be true , revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and adjudicated Appellant guilty of the charged offense. The trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for sixty years. We aff irm. Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is support e d by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that this appeal is frivolous and without merit

. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the mo tion to withdraw, and an explanatory letter . Counsel
advised Appellant that he had a right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel provided Appellant with a m otion for obtaining the records
and with contact information for the d istrict c lerk, the c ourt r eporter, and this c ourt

. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review in order to seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R.
A P P

. 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 pro se 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 without merit. The S tate presented evidence in support of the allegations in the motion to adjudicate. We note that proof
of one violation of the t erms and conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support revocation

. Smith v. State , 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Cri m. App. 2009)

. Further , 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. Jordan v. State , 54 S.W.3d 783, 785

– 86 (Tex. Crim. App.3 2001); Manuel v. State , 994 S.W.2d 658, 661

– 62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Based on our review of the record, we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal
exist. 1
W e grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial

court

.

PER CURIAM

June 28, 2019 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

W illson, J., not participating.

1 We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

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