In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-15-00052-CR 

No. 07-15-00053-CR 

________________________

STACIE ANN KENEMORE, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

 

On Appeal from the 108th District Court 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court Nos. 66,764-E & 66,765-E; Honorable Douglas R. Woodburn, Presiding 

 

August 7, 2015 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

In 2013, in exchange for a plea of guilty, Appellant, Stacie Ann Kenemore, was 

convicted of theft over $1,500 and under $20,000, a state jail felony,1in cause numbers 

66,764-E and 66,765-E. She was sentenced to two years confinement, suspended in 

favor of community supervision for five years. In cause number 66,764-E, she was 

 

1

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(e)(4) (West Supp. 2014).
2

assessed a $1,000 fine and ordered to pay $4,000 in restitution. In March 2014, the 

State moved to revoke Appellant’s community supervision for violations of the terms 

and conditions thereof. At a hearing on the State’s motion, Appellant pleaded true to 

some but not all of the State’s allegations. The State presented evidence of Appellant’s 

violations and the trial court revoked her community supervision and assessed 

punishment at two years confinement in a state jail facility, with the sentences to run 

concurrently. The court also reassessed the $1,000 fine and $4,000 in restitution in 

cause number 66,764-E. In presenting this appeal,2counsel has filed an Anders3brief 

in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm. 

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a 

conscientious examination of the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no 

potentially plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction. Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 

S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the 

controlling authorities, the record supports that conclusion. See High v. State, 573 

S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated he has complied 

with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief 

to Appellant, (2) notifying her of her right to review the record and file a pro se response 

if she desired to do so,4and (3) informing her of her right to file a pro se petition for 

 

2

 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted Appellant an out-of-time appeal in each case. Ex 

parte Kenemore, Nos. WR-82,627-01 & WR-82,627-02, 2015 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 67 (Tex. 

Crim. App. Jan. 28, 2015).

3

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

4

See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (regarding Appellant’s right of 

access to the record for the purpose of filing a pro se response).
3

discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408.5 By letter, this court granted 

Appellant an opportunity to exercise her right to file a response to counsel’s brief. 

Appellant did not file a response. Neither did the State favor us with a brief.

By the Anders brief, counsel evaluates the underlying proceedings and candidly 

concedes that reversible error is not presented. We agree with counsel.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing an order revoking community supervision, the sole question 

before this court is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Rickels v. State, 202 

S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1984); Jackson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). In a 

revocation proceeding, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 

the probationer violated a condition of community supervision as alleged in the motion 

to revoke. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). When more 

than one violation of the conditions of community supervision is alleged, a single 

violation is adequate and the revocation order shall be affirmed if at least one sufficient 

ground supports the court’s order. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1980); Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The trial 

court abuses its discretion in revoking community supervision if, as to every ground 

alleged, the State fails to meet its burden of proof. Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 494. In 

 

5 Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of her right to file a pro se petition for discretionary 

review upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal, counsel must 

comply with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within 

five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together 

with notification of her right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 

at 408 n.22 & 411 n.35. The duty to send the client a copy of this court’s decision is ministerial in nature, 

does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to 

withdraw. Id. at 411 n.33.
4

determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a revocation, we view the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Jones v. State, 589 

S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). Additionally, a plea of true standing alone is 

sufficient to support a trial court’s revocation order. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 

470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). 

ANALYSIS

Appellant’s community supervision officer testified that after Appellant was 

processed for her period of community supervision in August 2013, she never reported 

to the Community Supervision Department as required. Her community supervision 

officer had difficulty locating her at the address provided and, except for voicemails, was 

unable to contact her by telephone. Appellant failed to report an arrest for criminal 

trespass and failed to comply with financial obligations required by the terms of her 

community supervision.

Appellant testified she failed to report the first month because she was sick but 

had left a message with her community supervision officer. Her excuse for not reporting 

thereafter was that she was having domestic problems and was trying to find a new 

home and employment. Although she admitted receiving some mail at her apartment, 

she denied receiving a letter from the Department regarding her failure to report. She 

asked the trial court to reinstate her community supervision. Based on her pleas of true 

to some of the State’s allegations and the evidence presented, the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant’s community supervision.
5

We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there 

are any non-frivolous issues which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 

U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 

409; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have found no 

such issues. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). After 

reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree with counsel that there is no 

plausible basis for reversal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005). 

Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed and counsel's motion to 

withdraw is granted. 

Patrick A. Pirtle

 Justice

Do not publish.