Opinion filed July 26 , 201 2



## In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No. 11

- 12

- 00106

- C R

__________ RAVEN LYNN SHELTON , Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 266 th 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 agreeme nt, 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 supervis ion 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 trial2

court considered the motion at a hearing conducte d 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 eviden ce pertaining to punishment, th e trial court revoked appellant’ s commun ity 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

. W e dismi ss 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 appe al is frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the b rief 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 requir ements 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 re

view ed 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 s upervision

. See Moses v. State , 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).
T his court advises appellant that s 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.

July 26, 2012 PER CURIAM Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Kalenak , J.

1 By letter, this c ourt granted a ppellant thir ty days in which to exercise her right to file a response to counsel’s brief.