Opinion filed March 12 , 2020



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _

_____ 

### No. 11

- 1 9

- 00 2 43

- C R

_____ __ ____ 

### E LISIO MALDONADO , JR. , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 106 t h District Court Dawson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No

. 12

- 7157

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant, Elisio Maldo nado , Jr. , originally pleaded guilty to the third

- degree felony offense of driving while intoxicated

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § § 49.04(a), .09(b)(2) (West Supp. 2019 ). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, th e trial

court convicted Appellant of the offense , assessed his punishment at confinement for ten years and a $1,000 fine, suspended the imposition of confinement, and pl aced Appellant on community supervision for ten years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision. At the hearing on the motion,2 the State called two witnesses to testify in support of the motion. Appellant also

te stified and admitted that he had violated conditions of his probation. Appellant requested that his community supervision be reinstated and that he receive inpatient
substance abuse treatment. The trial court found the State’s allegations to be true , revoked Appellant’s community su pervision, and imposed the original sentence of confinement for ten years and a fine of $1,000. 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 consci entiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that this appeal is frivolous and without 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

. Court

appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (196 7); 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 pro se 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

. The State presented evidence in support of the allegati ons in its motion to revoke community supervision , and Appellant admitted that he violated the terms of his community supervision

. 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). Further , absent a void judgment, issues3 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); 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 exis t

. 1 The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed

.

PER CURIAM

March 12 , 2020 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J., Stretcher , J., and Wright, S.C.J. 2
Willson, J., not participating.

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

. 2 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.