Opinion file d July 27 , 2023



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 22

- 00 216

- CR

__________ JEFFREY ALLEN COPELAND , Appellant
V

. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 50th District Court Knox County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 4152

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Jeffrey Allen Copeland , Appellant, originally pled guilty to the third

- degree felony offense of evading arrest or detention in a motor vehicle

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 38.04 (a), ( b ) (2)(A) (West 2016 ). Pursuant to the terms of the negotiated plea agreement between Appellant and the State, the trial court sentenced Appellant to ten years imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) , suspended that sentence , and placed Appellant on community supervision for five years . The State later filed a motion2 to revoke Appellant’s community supervision that alleged nineteen violations of such supervision

. At the hearing on the State’s motion to revoke, Appellant pled

true to five of the allegations. The trial court subsequently found eight of the allegations tru e , revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and assessed his punishment at ten years imprison ment in the Institutional Division of TDCJ. We
affirm

. Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and appli cable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit

. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of
the brief , a copy of the motion to withdraw , an explanatory letter, and a copy of both the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Couns el also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 68

. C ourt

- 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); and Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex . Crim. App. 1991)

. Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit

. The record from the revocation hearing shows that Appellant failed to avoid places where alcoholic beverages are possessed, sold, or used ; failed to report ; had ig nition interlock

“ lockouts ” and removal ; failed to provide proof of an outpatient treatment program ; and failed to pay the fine, court costs, and community supervision fees that the trial court assessed against him

. We note that proof of one violation of the terms and conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support the trial court’s
revocation order

. Smith v. State , 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). In3 this regard, a plea of true standing alon e is sufficient to support a trial court’s
decision to revoke community supervision. See 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 b e 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 ) . Based upon our review of the record, we agree
with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1 However, we note that the trial court’s judgment incorrectly re fl ects the statute
for the offense for which Appellant was convicted . We have the authority to modify the trial court’s judgment to correctly show the trial court proceedings when we have the necessary information to do so. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State , 865 S.W.2d 26, 27

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Theref ore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to show that the “ Statute for [the] Offense ” is “ TEXAS PENAL CODE § 38.04(a), (b)(2)(A)

. ” Accordingly, w e grant counsel’s motion to withdraw , and we affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified

.

W. STACY TROTTER
JUSTICE

July 27 , 2023 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter , J., and Will iams , J.

1 We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

.