Opinion filed March 12, 2020

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-19-00243-CR

___________

ELISIO MALDONADO, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 106th 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 Maldonado, Jr., originally pleaded guilty to the third-degree

felony offense of driving while intoxicated. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 49.04(a), 

.09(b)(2) (West Supp. 2019). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the 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 placed 

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 

testified 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 supervision, 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 conscientiously 

examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that this 

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 

the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant 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 TEX.R. APP. P. 68. Courtappointed 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); 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 allegations in its motion to revoke community 

supervision, and Appellant admitted that he violated the terms of his community 

supervision. 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). Further, absent a void judgment, issues 
3

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 exist.

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 TEX. R. APP. 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.