Opinion filed May 5, 2022



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _

_____ 

### No. 11

- 2 1

- 00 184

- C R

_____ __ ____ 

### ROY EUGENE PEEL , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 35 t h District Court Brown County, Texas Trial Court Cause No

. CR 2 7228

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 T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 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 , th e trial court deferred a finding of guilt , placed Appellant on community supervision for ten years , and
also assessed a fine

. F our months later, t he State filed a motion to adjudicate2 Appellant’s guilt

. The trial court conducted a hearing on the State’s m otion , at which Appellant pled true to all but two of the allegation s in the State’s motion to adjudicate
and four witnesses testified

. T he trial court fo und all of the State’s allegations to be true, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated Appellant guilty of the charged offense, and assessed h is punishment at confinement for t wenty 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 s he has concluded that this appeal is frivolous and witho ut merit . Counsel has provided A ppellant 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 A ppellant 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68. Co urt

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 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 p roof 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 rev iew 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J., Trott er , J., and W ill 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.