Opinion filed December 8 , 2016



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _ _____ 

### No. 11

- 1 6

- 00 182

- C R

_____ __ ____ 

### MARTIN DEWAYNE WALTERS , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 358 t h District Court

Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No

. D

- 3 9 , 916

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant
, Martin Dewayne Walters
, originally pleaded guilty to the third

degree felony offense of driving while intoxicated

. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, th e trial court convicted Appellant, assessed his punishment, and placed him on community supervision for five years

. T he State subsequently filed a mot ion to revoke App ellant’s community supervision. At the revocation hearing, Appellant pleaded true to both of the alleg ation s contained in the State’s motion to revoke

. The

t rial court found the allegation s to be true
, revoked Appellant’s community2

supervision
, and sentenced him to confinement for five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

. 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 conscientiousl y examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous and without merit . Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, a copy of the

repor ter’s record , and a copy of the clerk’s record

. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Appellant has not filed a pro se response. 1
Court

- appointed counsel has complied with the requireme nts 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. [Panel Op.] 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 pro cedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and
should be dismissed. S ee S chulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409. We note that p roof of one
violation of the terms and conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support revocation. Smith v. State , 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). In this regard, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s
decision to revoke community supervision. Moses v. State , 590 S.W.2d 469, 470

1 T his court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief.3

(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Furthermore, absent a void judgment, issues relating to an original plea proceeding may not be raised in a subsequent appeal from the revocation of community s upervision

. Jordan v. State , 54 S.W. 3 d 783 , 785

– 86 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001 ) ; Traylor v. State , 561 S.W.2d 492, 494 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978)

. Based upon our review of the record, we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise A ppellant 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 crimin al 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 discret ionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises A ppellant 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

December 8 , 2016 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

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