Opinion filed August 8, 2019

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-19-00090-CR

__________

CHRISTOPHER FATE GRAVES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 106th District Court

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 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(F)(iv) (West 

2019). Pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement, the trial court deferred a finding 

of guilt, placed Appellant on community supervision for three years, assessed a fine 

of $1,000, and ordered Appellant to pay $41.81 in restitution. The State 

subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt. The trial court held a 
2

contested hearing on the State’s motion to 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, as 

modified, affirm the trial court’s judgment.

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 frivolous and without merit. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of 

the brief, a copy of the motion 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 TEX.R. APP. P. 68. Courtappointed 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. Following 

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, we 

note that proof 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). Further, absent a void judgment, issues relating to an 

original plea proceeding may not be raised in a subsequent appeal from the 
3

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 Appellant with theft of metal with a value of less than 

$20,000. See PENAL § 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 TEX R. APP. 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.”

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment

as modified.

PER CURIAM

August 8, 2019

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.2

Willson, J., not participating.

 

1We 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.