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 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021

(West 2019). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court deferred a 

finding of guilt, placed Appellant on community supervision for ten years, and 

assessed a fine of $6,000. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate 
2

Appellant’s guilt. The trial court held a contested hearing on the State’s motion to 

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 affirm.

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 he has concluded that this 

appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of 

the brief, a copy of the motion 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 motion for obtaining the records

and with contact information for the district clerk, the court reporter, and this court. 

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 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 pro se 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 without merit. The State presented 

evidence in support of the allegations in the motion to adjudicate. We note that proof 

of one violation of the terms and conditions of community supervision is sufficient 

to support revocation. Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. 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

 

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial 

court.

PER CURIAM

June 28, 2019

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 Rule 68 

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2

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

sitting by assignment.