Opinion filed August 11 , 2022



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _

_____ 

### No. 11

- 2 2

- 00 017

- C R

_____ __ ____ 

### 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 T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 38.04 (b)(2)(A) (West 2016 ). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement between Appellant and the State , th e trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed Appellant on community supervision for five years

. T he State later filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt

. At the hearing on the State’s motion to adjudicate,
A ppellant pled true to one of the allegation s in the motion

. T he trial court accepted2 Appellant’s plea and gave the parties an opportunity to present additional evidence

. T he n, the trial court found that Appellant had violated the terms and condition s of his deferred adjudication community supervision as alleged in the allegation to which Appel lant had pled true , revoked Appellant’s deferred adjudication community supervision, adjudicated Appellant guilty of the charged offense, and
assessed h is punishment at imprison ment 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 A ppellant 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 A ppellant of h is right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief

. Counsel also advised Appellant of h is right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review in order to seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68. 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); 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 p roof 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).
Further more, 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); Ma nuel 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J., Trotter , J., and W ill iams , 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.