Opinion filed March 20 , 2015



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

____ _ _

_ _____ 

### No. 11

- 1 4

- 00 2 82

- C R

_____ __ _____ 

### ROSEMARIE LYNN BROWN , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 29 th District Court
Palo Pinto County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No

. 14 994

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Pursuant to a plea agreement, Rosemarie Lynn Brown pleaded guilty in
March 2013 to the state jail felony offense of burglary of a building. The trial

court deferred a finding of guilt
, and it placed Appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for a term of three years

. In September 2014, the St ate filed a motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt based upon alleged
violations

— numbered one through six in the motion

— by Appellant of the terms2 and conditions of her community supervision. At a hearing on the motion, the State abandoned allegation one; Appellant pleaded “not true” to allegation s two, three, and four; and Appellant pleaded “true” to allegations five and six. After receiving evidence, the trial court found allegations two through six to be true, adjudicated Appellant guilty of the charged offense, and assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for eighteen months

. We dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw

. The
motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientious ly
examines the record and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided A ppellant with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the brief, the reporter’s record, and the clerk’s record, and counsel has advised A ppellant of
her 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); Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2 014); 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.2 d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and
Eaden v. State , 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2005, no pet.).
Fo llowing 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. A plea of true to an alleged violation standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to

1 By letter, this court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise h er right to file a response to counsel’s brief.3 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 A ppellant that s 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 on appeal shall, within five days
after t he 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 A ppellant
that s 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

March 20 , 201 5 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J. , and Bailey, J.