Opinion filed March 20, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ____________

No. 11-14-00282-CR

____________

ROSEMARIE LYNN BROWN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 29th District Court

Palo Pinto County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 14994

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 State 

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 terms 
2

and conditions of her community supervision. At a hearing on the motion, the 

State abandoned allegation one; Appellant pleaded “not true” to allegations 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 conscientiously 

examines the record and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous.

Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the brief, 

the reporter’s record, and the clerk’s record, and counsel has advised Appellant 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. 2014); 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. 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 her 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 Appellant that she 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 she 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

March 20, 2015

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.