Opinion filed October 27 , 2016



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _ _____ 

### No s . 11

- 1 6

- 00 1 59

- C R & 11

- 16

- 00 1 60

- CR

_____ __ ____ 

### BAILEY PHILLIPS , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 358 t h District Court

Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 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 agreement s , th e trial court convicted Appellant of each
offense
, assessed h er punishment, and placed h er on community supervision for two
years

. T he State subsequently filed motions to revoke Appellant’s community

1 We note that the indictment in Cause No. 11

- 16

- 00159

- CR reflects Appellant’s name to be Phillips Bailey.2

supe rvision. 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 alleg ation

. The t rial court found that allegation to be true
, revoked Appellant’s community supervision in both causes
, and sentenced h er 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 posses sion of methamphetamine

— with the sentences to run concurrently

. We dismiss the appeal s

. 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
conscienti ously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has
concluded that no reversible error exists and that the appeal s are frivolous and
without merit

. In each cause, c ounsel 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 h er right to review the
record s and file a response to counsel’s brief s

. Appellant has not filed a pro se

response. 2
Court

- appoint ed 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. 199 1); 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.).

2 T his court granted Appellant more than thirty days in which to exercise h er right to file a response to counsel’s brief

s

.3

Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record s , and we agree that the appeal s are without merit
and should be dismissed. Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409. In this regard, a plea of

tr ue 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. 3 d 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 A ppellant that s 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 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 pe tition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises A ppellant that s he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.
The motion s to withdraw are granted, and the appeal s are dismissed.

PER CURIAM

October 27 , 2016 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

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