In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-16-00073-CR 

________________________

JIMMY ZAVALA, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

 

On Appeal from the 137th District Court 

Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2012-433,926; Honorable John J. McClendon III, Presiding 

 

December 29, 2016 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Pursuant to a plea bargain, Appellant, Jimmy Zavala, was convicted of evading 

arrest or detention with a vehicle, a third degree felony,1and assessed a two year 

sentence, suspended in favor of three years community supervision. The terms and 

conditions of community supervision were amended a few months later to address 

substance abuse issues. By its Third Amended Motion to Revoke Community 

 

1

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04(b)(2)(A), § 12.35(a) (West Supp. 2016).
2

Supervision, the State alleged that Appellant violated numerous conditions of his 

community supervision. At the hearing on the State’s motion, Appellant entered pleas 

of true to all but one allegation—“fail[ure] to ID fugitive intent to give false info.” After 

hearing testimony, the trial court found all of the State’s allegations to be true and 

revoked Appellant’s community supervision and sentenced him to two years 

confinement. In presenting this appeal,2counsel has filed an Anders3brief in support of 

a motion to withdraw. We affirm and grant counsel’s motion.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a 

conscientious examination of the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no 

potentially plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction. Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 

S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the 

controlling authorities, the record supports that conclusion. See High v. State, 573 

S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated that he has 

complied with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of 

the brief to Appellant, (2) notifying him of the right to file a pro se response if he desired 

to do so, and (3) informing him of the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary 

review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408.4 By letter, this court granted Appellant an 

 

2

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted Appellant this out-of-time appeal.

3

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

4 Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary 

review upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal, counsel must 

comply with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within 

five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together 

with notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 

at 408 n.22 & 411 n.35. The duty to send the client a copy of this court’s decision is an informational one, 

not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the 

court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. Id. at 411 n.33.
3

opportunity to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief, should he be so 

inclined. Id. at 409 n.23. Appellant did not file a response. Neither did the State favor 

us with a brief.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing an order revoking community supervision, the sole question 

before this court is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Hacker v. State, 389 

S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006)). In a revocation proceeding, the State must prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of community 

supervision as alleged in the motion to revoke. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1993). In a revocation context, “a preponderance of the evidence” 

means “that greater weight of the credible evidence which would create a reasonable 

belief that the defendant has violated a condition of his [community supervision].” 

Hacker, 389 S.W.3d at 865 (citing Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 764). The trial court abuses 

its discretion in revoking community supervision if, as to every ground alleged, the State 

fails to meet its burden of proof. Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 494 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1984). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a revocation, we 

view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. Jones v. State, 

589 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). Additionally, a plea of true standing alone 

is sufficient to support a trial court’s revocation order. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 

470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).

By the Anders brief, counsel represents there are no arguable issues to present 

and concedes the evidence is sufficient to support revocation. 
4

The testimony of a police officer established that while Appellant was on 

community supervision, he was the subject of a noise complaint. During the 

investigation, Appellant gave the officer a false name. Upon learning Appellant’s 

identity, the officer discovered two active warrants. Appellant was arrested for failing to 

properly identify himself as a fugitive. The officer further testified that a month after that 

offense, Appellant was stopped for defective headlights. He was driving with an invalid

license and given a citation.

Appellant’s community supervision officer testified that Appellant did not comply 

with some of the amended terms and conditions of community supervision related to his 

substance abuse issues as well as the initial terms and conditions.5 Appellant failed to 

report, he did not complete his mandatory hours of community supervision, and he did 

not provide proof of employment.

Another community supervision officer who had previously supervised Appellant 

on a prior case in 2011 and 2012 testified Appellant did not comply with the terms and 

conditions on that case and was revoked on her recommendation. She testified that 

Appellant was exhibiting the same non-compliant behavior as in the previous case.

Appellant testified he worked in residential construction and was currently on a 

remodeling job with future jobs lined up. Appellant admitted he “just screwed up” and 

wanted another chance. He testified he was undergoing outpatient treatment and 

attending counseling but had lost his paperwork on his community service. He claimed 

to “have changed [his] life around.” 

 

5

Appellant’s test results and drug screens were negative; however, he testified he had a problem 

with drinking but testified he had stopped.
5

Appellant’s response to the failure to identify as a fugitive charge was that the 

officer was lying and that he was mistaken for his brother. He also testified he had 

provided documentation to the community supervision officer of compliance with some 

of the terms and conditions of community supervision.

Based on the evidence presented and Appellant’s plea of true to all but one of 

the State’s allegations, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking community 

supervision and sentencing Appellant to two years confinement—within the statutory 

range for a third degree felony.

We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there 

are any non-frivolous issues which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 

U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 

409; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have found no 

such issues. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). After 

reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree with counsel that there is no 

plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed and counsel's motion to 

withdraw is granted. 

Patrick A. Pirtle

 Justice

 

Do not publish.