Opinion filed August 11, 2022

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-22-00017-CR

___________

DREVON SMITH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 161st District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-20-0538-CR

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

Drevon Smith, Appellant, originally pled guilty to the third-degree felony

offense of evading arrest/detention with a vehicle. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. 

§ 38.04(b)(2)(A) (West 2016). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement between 

Appellant and the State, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed

Appellant on community supervision for five years. The State later filed a motion 

to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt. At the hearing on the State’s motion to adjudicate, 

Appellant pled true to one of the allegations in the motion. The trial court accepted 
2

Appellant’s plea and gave the parties an opportunity to present additional evidence.

Then, the trial court found that Appellant had violated the terms and conditions of 

his deferred adjudication community supervision as alleged in the allegation to 

which Appellant had pled true, revoked Appellant’s deferred adjudication 

community supervision, adjudicated Appellant guilty of the charged offense, and 

assessed his punishment at imprisonment for five years and a fine of $1,050. We

affirm. 

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 has provided Appellant with a copy 

of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of 

the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. 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 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. 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). 

In this regard, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s 

decision to revoke community supervision and proceed with an adjudication of guilt.
3

See Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 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 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 upon our review of the record, we agree with counsel that no arguable 

grounds for appeal exist.1 

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the 

trial court. 

PER CURIAM

August 11, 2022

Do not publish.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

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

1

We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.