In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-14-00053-CR 

________________________

TAYLOR RAY ARNATH AKA TAYLOR ARNATH, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

 

On Appeal from the 297th District Court 

Tarrant County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 1239693D; Honorable Everett Young, Presiding 

 

September 8, 2014 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

In August 2011, pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant, Taylor Ray Arnath, aka 

Taylor Arnath, was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for five 

years for burglary of a habitation and assessed a $500 fine.

1

 In December 2012, the 

State moved to proceed to adjudication alleging multiple violations of the terms and 

conditions of community supervision. In October 2013, by its third amended petition to 

 

1

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(a) (West 2011). As alleged in this cause, burglary of a 

habitation is a second degree felony.
2

proceed to adjudication, the State asserted eight violations of community supervision, 

including four new offenses. At a hearing on the State’s allegations, Appellant entered 

pleas of true to all eight allegations and the trial court heard testimony. Based on 

Appellant’s pleas of true and the testimony, the trial court found that Appellant violated 

the terms and conditions of community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of the original 

offense and sentenced him to eight years confinement. In presenting this appeal,

counsel has filed an Anders2brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We affirm and 

grant counsel=s motion.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a 

conscientious examination of the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no 

potentially plausible basis to support an appeal. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 

744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling 

authorities, the appeal is frivolous. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated that he has complied with the requirements of 

Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to Appellant, (2) notifying 

him of his right to file a pro se response if he desired to do so, and (3) informing him of 

his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.3 In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 

408.4 By letter, this Court granted Appellant an opportunity to exercise his right to file a 

 

2

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

3

This appeal was submitted before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued its decision in 

Kelly v. State, __ S.W.3d __, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 911 (Tex. Crim. App. June 25, 2014).

4 Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary 

review upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant=s Right of Appeal, counsel must 

comply with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within 

five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together 

with notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 

at 408 n.22 & at 411 n.35.
3

response to counsel=s brief, should he be so inclined. Id. at 409 n.23. Appellant did not 

file a response to the Anders brief. Neither did the State favor us with a brief.

BACKGROUND

Appellant, a very young man, suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder and 

adult antisocial behavior. His history of criminal activity began while he was a juvenile. 

While on community supervision for burglary of a habitation, he was afforded several 

opportunities to remain on community supervision with amended conditions. The 

testimony at the revocation hearing established that with proper medication and 

treatment, Appellant could live a normal life. 

By the Anders brief, counsel evaluates potential errors in Appellant’s case, 

including his competency. He concludes, however, that no arguable issues exist to 

present on appeal. 

DECISION TO ADJUDICATE—STANDARD OF REVIEW

An appeal from a trial court's order adjudicating guilt is reviewed in the same 

manner as a revocation hearing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 5(b) 

(West Supp. 2014). When reviewing an order revoking community supervision imposed 

under an order of deferred adjudication, the sole question before this Court is whether 

the trial court abused its discretion. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2006); Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Jackson v. 

State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). In a revocation proceeding, the 

State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the probationer violated a 

condition of community supervision as alleged in the motion. Cobb v. State, 851 
4

S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). If the State fails to meet its burden of proof, 

the trial court abuses its discretion in revoking community supervision. Cardona, 665 

S.W.2d at 494. In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a revocation, 

we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Jones v. 

State, 589 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). Additionally, a plea of true 

standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s revocation order. Moses v. State, 

590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). 

We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there 

are any non-frivolous issues which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 

U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409;

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have found no such 

issues. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). After

reviewing the record and counsel=s brief, we agree with counsel there is no plausible 

basis for reversal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

CONCLUSION

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed and counsel's motion to withdraw is 

granted. 

Patrick A. Pirtle

 Justice

Do not publish.