Opinion filed January 26, 2012

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-11-00224-CR

__________

CESAR CHAVEZ GARCIA, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 70th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. A-36,416

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

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Cesar Chavez Garcia pleaded guilty in 2009 to the offense 

of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt, placed 

him on deferred adjudication community supervision for a term of five years, and assessed a fine 

of $500. In 2011, the State filed a motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt, alleging 

multiple violations of the terms and conditions of community supervision. The trial court heard 

the motion to proceed on July 7, 2011. Appellant pleaded “true” to all of the alleged violations

except one that the State abandoned. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found the 

remaining allegations to be true, adjudicated appellant guilty of the charged offense, and 

assessed his punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice for a term of fifteen years and a fine of $500. We dismiss the appeal.
2

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 the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has 

provided appellant with a copy of the brief 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 record, and we agree that the appeal is without 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 proceed with 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 motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 

PER CURIAM

January 26, 2012

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.

 

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