Opinion filed April 14, 2016

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-15-00302-CR

___________

RAMSEY JOEL HINOJOSA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 106th District Court

Dawson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 14-7401

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

Appellant, Ramsey Joel Hinojosa, pleaded guilty to the third-degree felony 

offense of taking a prohibited substance into a correctional facility. Pursuant to the 

terms of the plea agreement, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed

Appellant on community supervision for three years. Subsequently, the State filed 

an application to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt. At a hearing on the State’s 

application, the trial court found the State’s allegations to be true, revoked 

Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of the charged offense, 
2

and assessed his punishment at confinement for ten years and a fine of $1,000. We 

dismiss the appeal.

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 the 

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

of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of

both the reporter’s record and the clerk’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of 

his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief.1 Appellant has 

not filed a response.

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.). 

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. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. 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). 

The record from the revocation hearing shows that Appellant admitted to some of 

the alleged violations of the terms and conditions of his community supervision. His 

 

1This court granted Appellant more than thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response 

to counsel’s brief.
3

community supervision officer also testified about various violations by Appellant

of the terms and conditions of his community supervision as alleged in the State’s 

application to adjudicate. Appellant made no evidentiary objections at the hearing. 

Based upon our review of the record, we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds 

for appeal exist.

We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that he 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 he may file a 

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

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

PER CURIAM

April 14, 2016

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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.