Opinion filed July 16, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-15-00031-CR

___________

AUGUSTINE MOLINA LEAL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 91st District Court

Eastland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 22707

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, Augustine Molina Leal, pleaded guilty to the state jail felony

offense of possession of a controlled substance, and the trial court assessed his 

punishment and placed him on community supervision pursuant to the terms of the 

plea bargain agreement. The State subsequently filed a motion in which it alleged

that Appellant had violated seven of the terms and conditions of his community 

supervision. At a hearing on the State’s motion, Appellant pleaded “true” to the 

allegation that he had violated Condition No. 16 by failing to perform community 
2

service as required. Appellant pleaded “not true” to the other allegations, and the 

State presented evidence as to the allegations contained in its motion. The trial 

court found six of the seven allegations to be true, revoked Appellant’s community 

supervision, and assessed his punishment at confinement for ten months in a state 

jail facility. We dismiss the appeal.

Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, the motion to 

withdraw, and a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record and has

advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s 

brief. Appellant filed in this court the motion for pro se access that was provided 

to him by counsel. We granted the motion on May 21, 2015. As of this date, 

Appellant has not filed a pro se response.1

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); 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.). In addressing an Anders brief 

and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is 

wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record 

and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and 

remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief 

the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–

27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

 

1By letter, this court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response 

to counsel’s brief.
3

Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have 

independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the 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. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App.

1979). Furthermore, absent a void judgment, issues relating to an original plea 

proceeding may not be raised in a subsequent appeal from the revocation of 

community supervision. Jordan v. State, 54 S.W.3d 783, 785–86 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2001); Traylor v. State, 561 S.W.2d 492, 494 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). 

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 that court. TEX. R. APP. 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 right 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

July 16, 2015

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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and McCall.

2

Bailey, J., not participating. 

 

2Terry McCall, Retired Justice, Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by 

assignment.