Opinion filed June 19, 2014

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ____________

Nos. 11-13-00341-CR & 11-13-00342-CR

____________

TREY WALKER PROCK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 396th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 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 community 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 evidence, the trial court found 

that allegation and three other allegations to be true, adjudicated 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 ten years on the 

offense of assault family violence. The trial court ordered that the sentences run 

concurrently. We dismiss the appeals. 

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in these

appeals. In each appeal, 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 

Appellant with a copy of the brief in each appeal and advised Appellant 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.). 

Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have 

independently reviewed the records, and we agree that the appeals are without 

 1

By letter, this court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to 

counsel’s briefs.
3

merit and should be dismissed. 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 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). 

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 motions to withdraw are granted, and the appeals are dismissed. 

PER CURIAM

June 19, 2014

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.