Opinion filed June 19 , 201 4



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

____ _ _

_ _____ 

### No s . 11

- 13

- 00 341

- C R & 11

- 13

- 00 342

- CR

_____ __ _____ 

### TREY WALKER PROCK , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 396th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No s . 1321389D & 1324336W

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Pursuant to a plea agreement, Trey Walker Prock pleaded guilty in May
2013 to the offense of burglary of a habitation (No. 11

- 13

- 00341

- CR) and to the offense of assault family violence by impeding breath or circulation (No. 11

- 13

- 00342

- CR). The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed him on deferred adjudication comm unity supervision for a term of six years on each offense

.2 In June 2013, the State filed a second amended motion to proceed to an adjudication of guilt based upon six alleged violations by Appellant of the terms and conditions of his community supervision. At a hearing on the motion, Appellant pleaded “true” to the allegation that he violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision by using marihuana on May 7, 2013
, and by consuming alcohol on May 8, 2013. After receiving evidenc e, the trial court found that allegation and three other allegations to be true, adj udicated Appellant guilty of the charged offenses, and assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement for twelve years on the offense of burglary of a habitation and for te n years on the
offe nse of assault family violence. The trial court ordered that the sentences run concurrently. We dismiss the appeal s

. Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in these appeals

. In each appe al, 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. Counsel has provided
A ppellant with a copy of the brief in eac h appeal and advised A ppellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. A response has not been
filed. 1 Court

- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); 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. 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.).
Fo llowing the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record s , and we agree that the appeal s are without

1 By letter, this court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief s

.3 merit and should be d ismissed. Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409. In this regard, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision and to proceed to an adjudication of guilt. See Moses v.
State , 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (T ex. Crim. App. 1979). We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.
The motion s to withdraw are granted, and the appeal s are dismissed.

PER CURIAM

June 19 , 201 4 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J. , and Bailey, J.