Opinion filed July 27, 2023

 

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-22-00216-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 TEX. PENAL 

CODE ANN. § 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 motion 
2

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 true, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and assessed his 

punishment at ten years imprisonment 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 applicable 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. Counsel 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 TEX.R. APP. P. 68. 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); 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 ignition 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). In 
3

this regard, a plea of true standing alone 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 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). 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 reflectsthe 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 

S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Therefore, 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, we 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, 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.