Opinion filed April 1 8 , 2019



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _ _____ 

### No. 11

- 1 8

- 00 2 83

- C R

_____ __ ____ 

### WILLIAM EDWARDS , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 70 t h District Court

Ect or County, Texas Trial Court Cause No

. A

- 16

- 1432

- CR

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant, William Edwards
, originally pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against a person with whom he had a dating or family relationship

. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, th e trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed Appellant on community supervision for eight

years and fine of $500

. T he State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt

. At a hearing on th at motion
, Appellant pleaded true to two of the
State’s allegation s

. T he State and Appellant presented additional evidence. At the2

end of that hearing, t he trial court found all of the allegations to be true
, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated Appellant guilty of the charged offense, and assessed h is punishment at confinement for fifteen years and the previously unpaid fine of $500

. We affirm

. 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 this appeal is frivolou s and without merit . Counsel has provided A ppellant with a copy
of the brief , a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of
the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record

. Counsel advised A ppellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief . Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review in order to seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

. Court

- appointed 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); and Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

. Appe llant has filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant asserts in his response that he is innocent and that he did not commit the crime of
which he was convicted and to which he pleaded guilty

. In addressing an Anders
brief and a 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).3

Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently r eviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit

. We note that p roof of one violation of the terms and conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support revocation. Smith v. State , 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). In this regard, a plea of 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, absent a void judgment, 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. Jordan v. State , 54 S.W.3d 783, 785

– 86 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Manuel v. State , 994 S.W.2d 658,
661

– 62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Based upon our review of the record, we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is
affirm ed

.

PER CURIAM

April 18 , 2019 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J., Stretcher , J., and Wright, S.C.J. 1
Willson, J., not participating.

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.