Opinion filed April 19 , 2018



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _ _____ 

### No. 11

- 1 7

- 00 284

- C R

_____ __ ____ 

### ALONZO ROSHAWN PRIMUS , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 2 9 t h District Court Palo Pinto County, Texas Trial Court Cause No

. 13606

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant, Alonzo Roshawn Primus
, originally pleaded guilty to the offense
of possession with the intent to deliver between four and two hundred grams of
cocaine

. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, th e trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed Appellant on community supervision for six years

. The trial court subsequently added two years to the term of deferred adjudication community supervision, making the total term eight years. T he State later filed a2

motion to adjudicate and two amended motions to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt

. At
the adju dication hearing, Appellant pleaded true to all of the State’s allegation s . The
trial court found all of the allegations to be true
, adjudicated Appellant guilty of the charged offense, and assessed h is punishment at confinement for forty years and a fine of $2,210

. We dismiss the appeal. Appe llant’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 tha t he has concluded that the re are no arguable issues that can be asserted in this appeal . Counsel has provided
A ppellant with a copy of the brief , a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a form motion for pro se access to the appellat e record

. Counsel also
advised A ppellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s
brief. 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. [Panel Op.] 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.). Appellant has filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant asserts in his response that his rights were viol ated by the trial court fail ing to adjudicate his guilt earlier and “continually allowing Appellant to post bail when in fact the trial court knew he was a danger to society.” In addressing an Anders brief
and a pro se response, a court of appeals may onl y determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the3

cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.
Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409 ; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (T ex. Crim. App. 2005). 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. See Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409. We note that p roof 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). In this regard, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision and proceed with an adjudication of guilt.
S ee Moses v. State , 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). 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 adjudi cation of guilt. 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 argu able grounds for appeal exist. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 48.4 (“In crimin al 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 discret ionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

April 19 , 2018 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Willson, J., Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J. 1

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