Opinion filed October 27, 2016

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

Nos. 11-16-00159-CR & 11-16-00160-CR

___________

BAILEY PHILLIPS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 358th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. D-45,795 & D-45,845

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, Bailey Phillips,

1 originally pleaded guilty to the offenses of 

unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and possession of methamphetamine. Pursuant 

to the terms of the plea agreements, the trial court convicted Appellant of each 

offense, assessed her punishment, and placed her on community supervision for two

years. The State subsequently filed motions to revoke Appellant’s community 

 

1We note that the indictment in Cause No. 11-16-00159-CR reflects Appellant’s name to be Phillips 

Bailey.
2

supervision. At the revocation hearing, the State abandoned all but one of the 

allegations in its motion to revoke in each case, and Appellant pleaded true to the 

remaining allegation. The trial court found that allegation to be true, revoked 

Appellant’s community supervision in both causes, and sentenced her to

confinement for two years in a state jail facility for the unauthorized use of a motor 

vehicle and two years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice for the possession of methamphetamine—with the sentences to run 

concurrently. We dismiss the appeals.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in both 

appeals. Each 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 no reversible error exists and that the appeals are frivolous and 

without merit. In each cause, counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the 

brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, the reporter’s record, 

and the clerk’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of her right to review the 

records and file a response to counsel’s briefs. Appellant has not filed a pro se 

response.2

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.).

 

2This court granted Appellant more than thirty days in which to exercise her right to file a response 

to counsel’s briefs.
3

Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have 

independently reviewed the records, and we agree that the appeals are without merit 

and should be dismissed. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. In this regard, a plea of 

true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to revoke 

community supervision. 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. Jordan v. State, 54 S.W.3d 783, 785–86 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2001); Traylor v. State, 561 S.W.2d 492, 494 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1978). 

We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that she may 

file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal 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 discretionary 

review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises Appellant that she may file a 

petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

The motions to withdraw are granted, and the appeals are dismissed.

PER CURIAM

October 27, 2016

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.