Opinion filed May 10, 2012

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-12-00005-CR

__________

DAVID ALBERT RODRIGUEZ, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 358th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. D-35,611

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

David Albert Rodriguez, pleaded guilty in September 2009 to four counts of criminal 

mischief. In accordance with a plea agreement, the trial court assessed his punishment at 

confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of 

two years on each count with the sentences to run concurrently. However, the trial court 

suspended the imposition of the sentences and placed appellant on community supervision for a 

term of two years.
2

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 

court considered the motion at a hearing conducted on October 3, 2011. Appellant entered a plea 

of “true” to all of the alleged violations at the outset of the hearing. After considering evidence 

pertaining to punishment, the trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision and assessed 

his punishment at confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice for a term of two 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 appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his 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).

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.

 

1By letter, this court granted appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief. 
3

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

PER CURIAM

May 10, 2012

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.