## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07
- 13
- 00379
- CR
ROY SANCHEZ, APPELLA NT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 242nd District Court

Castro County, Texas Trial Court No. B3368
- 1109, Honorable Edward Lee Sel f, Presiding



### March 24 , 2014 MEMORANDUM OPINION QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant Roy Sanchez appeals from the trial court’s judgment revoking his deferred adjudicat ion community supervision, adjudicating him guilty of the offense of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in an amount less than one gram 1 and imposin g sentence of imprisonment in a state jail facility for a period of two years and a $200 0 fine

. 2 Appellant’s court
- appointed attorney has filed a motion to

1 See T EX
. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN . § 481.115 (a), (b) (West 2009 ).

2 T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 12.35 (West 2012).2

withdraw supported by an Anders 3 brief. We will grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court. Background Appellant was charged via indictment with the s tate jail felony offense of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in an amount of less than one gram. 4 In February 2012, he plead guilty to the offense as charged. The trial court placed him on deferred adj udication community supervision for a period of three years. Appellant’s community supervision was subject to certain terms and conditions. In September 2013, the State filed a m otion to p roceed with an a djudication of g uilt , alleging appellant committed several violations of the terms and conditions of his community supervision. The court heard the State’s motion in October 2013. At that hearing, appellant plead “true” to allegations 3, 5, and 6 of the State’s motion. 5 Appellant’s community supervision officer testified to additional violations. Following the presentation of the evidence, the court found appellant violated six terms and conditions of his community supervision, including the three to which appellant plead “true , ”

3 Anders v. Californ ia, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); see In re Schulman , 252 S.W. 3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) ("[T]he sole purpose of an Anders brief is to explain and support the motion to withdraw").

4 T EX
. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN . § 481.115(a), (b) (West 2009 ).

5 It has long been held that a plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to authorize revo cation of community supervision. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Brooks v. State, 995 S.W.2d 762, 7 63 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1999, no pet.). Likewise, i f there is proof of at least one violation of the terms of community supervision, the evidence is sufficient to support revocation

. O’Neal v. State, 623 S.W.2d 660, 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); Leach v. State , 170 S.W.3d 669 , 672 (Tex. App

. — Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref'd).3

revoked his community supervision, adjudicated him guil ty of the charged offense, and imposed sentence as noted. This appeal followed. Analysis Appellant's counsel on appeal expresses his opinion in the Anders brief that nothing in the rec ord establishes arguable reversible error and the appeal is frivolous. The brief discusses the case background, the grounds alleged for revocation, appellant’s pleas of true, and the evidence presented at the hearing. Counsel discusses one ground of potential error but concludes the trial court did not abuse its discretion b y revoking appellant's community supervision and imposing a sentence within the permissible range. Correspondence from counsel to appellant indicates counsel supplied appellant a copy of the Anders brief and counsel's motion to withdraw. The correspondence also points out the right of appellant to review the record and file a pro
se response and his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review in the Co urt of Criminal Appeals should he recei ve an adverse decision by this Court. By letter, this C ourt also notified appellant of his opportunity to submit a response to the Anders brief and motion to withdraw filed by his counsel. App ellant did not file a response. In conformity with the standards set out by the United States Supreme Court, we will n ot rule on the motion to withdraw until we have independently examined the record. Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.

— San A ntonio 1997, no pet.). If this C ourt determines the appeal arguably has merit, we will remand it to the trial court for
a ppointment of new counsel. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have reviewed the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable4

grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds supporting a claim of reversible error and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
Conclusion
The motion of coun sel to withdraw is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 6

James T. Campbell Justice

Do not publish.

6 Counsel 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 pe tition for discretionary review. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 48.4.