Opinion filed August 8, 2019



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ N o. 11

- 19

- 00090

- CR

__________
CHRISTOPHER FATE GRAVES , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 106th District C ourt

Gaines County , Texas Trial Court Cause No

. 17

- 4809

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant
, Christopher Fate Graves
, pleaded guilty to the state jail felony
offense of theft of metal

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(F)(iv) (West
2019 ). Pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement, the trial court deferred a findi ng of guilt, placed Appellant on co mmunity supervision for three years, assessed a fine of $1,000, and order ed Appellant to pay $41.81 in restitution . T he State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt. The trial court held a2

contested hearing on the State’s motion t o adjudicate, found three of the State’s allegations to be true , and adjudicated Appellant guilty of the charged offense. The trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement in a state jail facility for twenty months

. We modify the trial court’s judgment to correctly reflect that Appellant was convicted of theft of metals with a value of less than $20,000 and, a s modified, aff

irm the trial court’s judgment

. Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The
motion is support ed 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 frivolous and without merit. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the mot ion to withdraw
, a copy of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record , and an explanatory letter . Counsel advised Appellant 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. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68. 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). Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. F ollowing the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit. The State presented evidence in support of the allegations in the motion to adjudicate. In that regard, w e note that proof of one violation of the t erms and conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support revocation

. Smith v. State , 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)

. Further , absent a void judgment, issues relating to an original plea proceeding may not be raised in a subsequent appeal from the3

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 on our review of the record, we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for error exist. 1 However, we note that the trial court’s January 24, 2019 judgment incorrectly reflects that Appellant was convicted of theft of metal valued at less than $30,000. The indictment charged Appell ant with theft of metal with a value of less than $20,000. See P ENAL § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(F). We have the authority to modify the trial court’s judgment to correctly reflect the trial court proceedings when we have the necessary information to do so. See T EX R. A PP

. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State , 865 S.W.2d 26, 27

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Therefore, we modify the trial court’s January 24, 2019 judgment to reflect that the “OFFENSE” is “THEFT OF METALS < $20,000.”
W e grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the tr ial court’s judgment
as modified

.

PER CURIAM

August 8, 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. 2

Willson, J., not participating.

1 We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.

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