Opinion filed July 10 , 201 4



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

____ _ _ _ _____ No s . 11
- 13
- 00 367
- C R & 11
- 13
- 00 368
- CR

_____ __ _____ CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL COBOS , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 244 th District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 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 conf inement for five years and a fine of $750 in No. 11

- 13

- 00 3 67

- 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 community2 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 A ppellant 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

- 0036 7

- CR based upon three alleged violations by Appel

lant 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 recei ving 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

- 1 3

- 00367

- CR and at confinement for two years in No. 11

- 13

- 00368

- CR. The sentences are to run concurrently. We dismiss the appeals. Ap pellant’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 professio nally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided A ppellant with a copy of the brief in each appeal and advised A ppellant 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.

— Ea stland 2005, no pet.). Fo llowing the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal s 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 A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within fiv e 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 A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 68. The motion s to withdraw are granted, and the appeal s are dismissed.

PER CURIAM
July 10 , 201 4 Do not publish. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J. , and Bailey, J.