Opinion filed March 27 , 201 4



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 1 3

- 00 346

- CR

__________ ABRAM JERRY ALDACO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 396th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court Cause No

. 1323018D

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Abram Jerry Aldaco pleaded guilty in July 201 3 to aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury. In accordance with a plea agreement, the trial court
assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement for ten years and a fine of $600
, suspended the imposition of the confinement portion of the sentence
, and placed appellant on community supervision for a term of six years.2 In September 2013, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision based upon Appellant’s alleged violations of the terms and conditions of his community supervision. Later, the State filed an amended motion to revoke in which it alleged that Appellant had committed six violations of the terms and conditions of his community supervision. A t a hearing on the State’s amended motion to revoke, Appellant pleaded “ true ” to all of the alleged
violations. The trial court revoked Appellant’s community supervision and assessed his punishment at confinement for ten years. 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 applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided A ppellant with a copy of the b rief and
advise d A ppellant of h is 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); 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 Ead en 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.3 d at 409. In this regard, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to revoke

1 By letter, this c ourt granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief.3 community supervision

. 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 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 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 Ru le 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

March 27 , 201 4 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

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

.