In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-12-0459-CR 

________________________

JUAN PABLO RAMOS, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

 

On Appeal from the 21st District Court 

Bastrop County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 13763, Honorable Christopher D. Duggan, Presiding 

 

April 4, 2013 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Following a plea of guilty to two counts of online solicitation of a minor,

1 on 

October 8, 2009, Appellant, Juan Pablo Ramos, was granted deferred adjudication and 

placed on community supervision for ten years. On April 20, 2012, the State filed a 

Motion to Adjudicate alleging multiple violations by Appellant of his conditions of 

community supervision. At the hearing on the State’s motion, Appellant entered pleas 

 1

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 33.021 (WEST 2011).
2

of true to two of the allegations and not true to four of the allegations.

2

 After hearing 

testimony from Appellant’s community supervision officer and based on Appellant’s 

pleas of true, the trial court adjudicated him guilty of both counts of the original offense 

and sentenced him to eight years confinement.3 In presenting this appeal, counsel has 

filed an Anders4 brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel=s motion to 

withdraw 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 that he has 

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

the brief to Appellant, (2) notifying him of his right to file a pro se response if he desired 

to do so, and (3) informing him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary 

review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408.5

 By letter, this Court granted Appellant an 

 2

One of the allegations was that Appellant failed to abstain from use of alcohol on or about January 27, 

2011, and on or about April 4, 2012. He entered a plea of true to the first date, but pled not true to the 

second date. So as to that allegation, his plea is true, in part and not true, in part.

3

The special findings portion of both judgments provides, “Court waives all fines, fees, costs and monies 

owed.”

4

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

5

Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of his 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 
3

opportunity to exercise his right to file a response to counsel=s brief, should he be so 

inclined. Id. at 409 n.23. Appellant did not file a response. Neither did the State favor 

us with a brief.

By the Anders brief, counsel does not raise any arguable issues to present to this 

Court but candidly concedes that a finding of a single violation of the conditions of 

community supervision is sufficient to support revocation. Additionally, Appellant’s plea 

of true to two of the allegations, standing alone, suffices to support the revocation order. 

We review an appeal from a trial court's order adjudicating guilt in the same 

manner as a revocation hearing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 5(b) 

(WEST SUPP. 2012). When reviewing an order revoking community supervision imposed 

under an order of deferred adjudication, 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. 

Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). If the State fails to meet its 

burden of proof, the trial court abuses its discretion in revoking community supervision. 

Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 494. In 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. 

 

notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 

n.22 & at 411 n.35. The duty to send the client a copy of the court of appeals’s decision is an 

informational one, not a representational one. It 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

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). 

We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there 

are any arguable issues which might support reversal of Appellant’s conviction. See

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 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 (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 

(Tex.Crim.App. 2005). 

CONCLUSION

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed and counsel's motion to withdraw is 

granted. 

Patrick A. Pirtle

 Justice

Do not publish.