Opinion filed May 5, 2022

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-21-00184-CR

___________

ROY EUGENE PEEL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 35th District Court

Brown County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR27228

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

Appellant, Roy Eugene Peel, originally pled guilty to the second-degree 

felony offense of aggravated assault and true to an enhancement allegation, which 

made the offense punishable as a first-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. 

§ 22.02(a)(2), (b) (West Supp. 2021), §12.42(b) (West 2019). Pursuant to the terms 

of the plea agreement between Appellant and the State, the trial court deferred a 

finding of guilt, placed Appellant on community supervision for ten years, and

also assessed a fine. Four months later, the State filed a motion to adjudicate 
2

Appellant’s guilt. The trial court conducted a hearing on the State’s motion, at which

Appellant pled true to all but two of the allegationsin the State’s motion to adjudicate 

and four witnesses testified. The trial court found all of the State’s allegations to be 

true, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated Appellant guilty of 

the charged offense, and assessed his punishment at confinement for twenty years.

We affirm. 

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 she has concluded that this 

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 

the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right 

to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised 

Appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review in order to 

seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX.R. APP. P. 68. Courtappointed 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 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. 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). 

In this regard, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s

decision to revoke community supervision and proceed with an adjudication of guilt.

See Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). 
3

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 and adjudication of guilt. Jordan v. State, 54 S.W.3d 783, 785–86 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2001); Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661–62 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1999). Based upon our review of the record, we agree with counsel that no arguable 

grounds for appeal exist.1 

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is 

affirmed.

PER CURIAM

May 5, 2022

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.