Opinion filed December 8, 2016

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-16-00201-CR

___________

JAVIER CASAREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 358th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. D-45,463

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

Appellant, Javier Casarez, originally pleaded guilty to the third-degree felony

offense of driving while intoxicated. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, 

the trial court convicted Appellant, assessed his punishment, and placed him on 

community supervision for five years. The State subsequently filed a motion to 

revoke Appellant’s community supervision. At the revocation hearing, Appellant 

pleaded true to six of the allegations contained in the State’s motion to revoke. The 
2

trial court found those allegations to be true, revoked Appellant’s community 

supervision, sentenced him to confinement for five years in the Institutional Division 

of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and imposed a fine in the amount of

$2,652—which was a majority of the original $3,000 fine. 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 she 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, a copy of the 

reporter’s record, and a copy of the clerk’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant 

of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Appellant has 

not filed a pro se response.1 

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). 

 

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

brief. 
3

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

decision to revoke community supervision. 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); Traylor v. State, 561 S.W.2d 492, 494 (Tex. Crim. App. 

[Panel Op.] 1978). 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.