Opinion filed May 10 , 201 2



## In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No. 11

- 12

- 00005

- C R

__________ DAVID ALBERT RODRI G UEZ , Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 35 8 th 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 i mposition of the sentence s 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 superv ision. 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, th e trial cour t 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. W e dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a m otion 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 b rief and advised appellant of h is 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 re

viewed the record, and we agree that t he 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 , 5 90 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 th at court. T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 r ight 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 T EX

. R. A PP . P. 68.

1 By letter, this c ourt granted a ppellant 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 T EX

. R. A PP

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