Opinion filed July 26, 2012

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-12-00106-CR

__________

RAVEN LYNN SHELTON, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 266th District Court

Erath County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR12997

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

Raven Lynn Shelton pleaded guilty in June 2008 to the offense of theft. In accordance 

with a plea agreement, the trial court assessed her punishment at confinement in the State Jail 

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of two years and a fine of 

$1,000. However, the trial court suspended the imposition of the sentence and placed appellant 

on community supervision for a term of five years.

The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke community supervision, alleging 

numerous violations of the terms and conditions of appellant’s community supervision. The trial 
2

court considered the motion at a hearing conducted on March 20, 2012. Appellant entered a plea 

of “true” to all of the alleged violations at the outset of the hearing. Appellant also executed a 

stipulation of evidence wherein she judicially confessed to the alleged violations. After 

considering evidence pertaining to punishment, the trial court revoked appellant’s community 

supervision and assessed her punishment at confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice for a term of two years and a fine of $1,000. 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 appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of her 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 Eaden 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.3d at 409. In this regard, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to 

support a trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision. See Moses v. State, 590 

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

This court advises appellant that she may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant 

to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

July 26, 2012 PER CURIAM

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.

 

1

By letter, this court granted appellant thirty days in which to exercise her right to file a response to counsel’s brief.