Opinion filed January 26 , 201 2



## In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No. 11

- 11

- 00224

- C R

__________ CESAR CHAVEZ GARCIA , Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 7 0 th 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
Pur suant to a plea agreement, Cesar Chavez Garcia pleaded guilty in 20 09 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 201 1 , the State filed a motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt
, alleging multiple violation s of the terms and condi tions of community supervision. The trial court heard
the motion to proceed on Ju ly 7 , 2011

. Appellant pleaded “true” to all of the alleged violation s except one that the State abandoned. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found the remaining allegations to be true, adjudicated appellan t guilty of the charged offense, and assessed his punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Jus tice 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 80 7 (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. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant

o n 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 cou rt advises appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

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

PER CURIAM January 26 , 2012 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Kalenak , J.

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