Opinion filed December 8, 2016

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-16-00185-CR

___________

JORGE LUIS VALERIANO BONILLA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 358th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. D-39,784

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

Appellant, Jorge Luis Valeriano Bonilla, pleaded guilty to the offense of

evading arrest or detention, a state jail felony. 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 a motion to 

adjudicate Appellant’s guilt and proceed with an adjudication of guilt. At a hearing

on the motion, Appellant pleaded true to both of the State’s allegations. The trial 

court found the allegations to be true, revoked Appellant’s community supervision,
2

adjudicated him guilty of the charged offense, and assessed his punishment at 

confinement for two years in a state jail facility. 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. See 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). 

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.

 

1This court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s 

brief. 
3

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 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. 

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

December 8, 2016

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.