Opinion filed April 14, 2016

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

____________

No. 11-15-00200-CR

____________

MATTHEW TYLER JONES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 104th District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 18637B

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, Matthew Tyler Jones, pleaded guilty in December 2012 to the 

offense of evading arrest. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed 

Appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for a term of four

years. In February 2015, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community 

supervision and to adjudicate his guilt based upon alleged violations of the terms 

and conditions of his community supervision. At a hearing on the State’s motion 

to adjudicate, Appellant pleaded “true” to the alleged violations. The trial court 
2

found the allegations to be true, adjudicated Appellant guilty of the charged 

offense, and assessed his punishment at confinement for five years and a fine of 

$794. We modify and dismiss.

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 Appellant with a copy of the brief, the 

motion to withdraw, the clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, and also a form for 

pro se access to the record. In an explanatory letter, counsel advised Appellant of 

his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Courtappointed 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. 

[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.).

Appellant has filed a pro se response to counsel’s motion to withdraw and 

supporting brief. In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of 

appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an 

opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or 

(2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so 

that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 

409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

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. In this regard, a plea of 
3

true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to revoke 

community supervision and proceed with an adjudication of guilt. See Moses v. 

State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Furthermore, 

issues relating to an original plea proceeding may not be raised in a subsequent 

appeal from the revocation of community supervision and adjudication of guilt. 

Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661–62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

In our review of the record, however, we note that there is a variation 

between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment. The 

judgment includes a fine of $794. When the trial court revoked Appellant’s 

community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, assessed his punishment, and orally 

pronounced the sentence in open court, the trial court did not mention a fine. The 

trial court was required to pronounce the sentence in Appellant’s presence. See

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.03 (West Supp. 2015); Taylor v. State, 131 

S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). When there is a variation between the 

oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement 

controls. Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326, 328–29 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); see 

also Taylor, 131 S.W.3d at 500–02 (explaining the distinction between regular 

community supervision, in which sentence is imposed but suspended when a 

defendant is placed on community supervision, and deferred-adjudication 

community supervision, in which the adjudication of guilt and the imposition of 

sentence are deferred).

Because the trial court did not mention any fine when it orally pronounced 

Appellant’s sentence and because we have the necessary information for 

reformation, we modify the trial court’s judgment to delete the fine. See Taylor, 

131 S.W.3d at 502; Cerna v. State, No. 11-14-00363-CR, 2015 WL 3918259, at *2

(Tex. App.—Eastland June 25, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 
4

publication). Other than the necessary reformation of the judgment, we agree with 

counsel that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. 

We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that he 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 he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

We modify the judgment of the trial court to delete the $794 fine. Finding 

that the appeal is otherwise meritless, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and 

dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

April 14, 2016

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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.