Opinion filed July 10, 2014

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ____________

Nos. 11-13-00367-CR & 11-13-00368-CR

____________

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL COBOS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 244th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. C-37,580 & C-37,581

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

Christopher Michael Cobos pleaded guilty in September 2010 to the offense 

of driving while intoxicated, third offense (No. 11-13-00367-CR) and to the 

offense of criminal mischief, $1,500 or more but less than $20,000 (No. 11-13-

00368-CR). In accordance with a plea agreement, the trial court convicted 

Appellant of both offenses and assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement 

for five years and a fine of $750 in No. 11-13-00367-CR and at confinement for 

two years in No. 11-13-00368-CR. The trial court suspended the imposition of the 

confinement portion of both sentences and placed Appellant on community 
2

supervision for a term of five years for each offense. In March 2011, the State 

filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision in both cases based on 

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

supervision. The motions were resolved when the trial court entered an order 

amending the rules of Appellant’s community supervision.

In November 2011, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s 

community supervision in No. 11-13-00368-CR based upon two alleged violations 

by Appellant of the terms and conditions of his community supervision. In 

January 2012, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community 

supervision in No. 11-13-00367-CR based upon three alleged violations by Appellant of the terms and conditions of his community supervision. At a hearing on the 

motions, Appellant pleaded “true” to all three of the allegations in No. 11-13-

00367-CR, and he pleaded “true” to one of the two allegations in No. 11-13-

00368-CR. After receiving evidence, the trial court found all the allegations in 

both causes to be true, revoked Appellant’s community supervision in both causes, 

and assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement for four years in No. 11-13-

00367-CR and at confinement for two years in No. 11-13-00368-CR. The 

sentences are to run concurrently. We dismiss the appeals.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in each 

appeal. In each appeal, 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 the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided 

Appellant with a copy of the brief in each appeal and advised Appellant of his right 

to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. A response has not been 

filed.1

 Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. 

 1

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

to counsel’s brief.
3

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); 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.). 

Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have 

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

App. 1979). 

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 motions to withdraw are granted, and the appeals are dismissed. 

PER CURIAM

July 10, 2014

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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.