Court Opinion

ID: 9925499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-20 07:11:05.929344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:50.480524
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed January 18, 2024

                                       In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                     __________

                                 No. 11-22-00282-CR
                                     __________

                     RODOLFO SANCHEZ, Appellant

                                         V.

                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                     On Appeal from the 70th District Court
                              Ector County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. A-18-1711-CR

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Appellant, Rodolfo Sanchez, originally pled guilty to the third-degree felony
offense of failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements. See TEX.
CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 62.051 (West Supp. 2023), art. 62.102 (West 2018).
On June 16, 2020, pursuant to the terms of a negotiated plea agreement between
Appellant and the State, the trial court deferred finding Appellant guilty, and placed
him on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of five years. As
conditions of his community supervision, Appellant was required, among other
things, to follow all state and federal laws, report to his community supervision
officer as instructed, and pay a $1,000 fine and court costs.
      The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community
supervision and to adjudicate his guilt, alleging that Appellant “failed to abstain from
the use of drugs . . . to wit: Cocaine.” On October 10, 2022, the trial court held a
hearing on the State’s motion, during which Appellant pled “true” to this allegation
and asked the trial court to continue his community supervision.             Upon the
conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found the sole violation alleged in the
State’s motion to be “true,” adjudicated Appellant guilty, revoked his community
supervision, and assessed Appellant’s punishment at eight years’ imprisonment in
the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
      Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this
court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are
no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of
the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both
the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his
right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief and of his right to
file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Therefore, 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).

                                           2
        Although granted an extension, Appellant has not filed a pro se 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. Here, Appellant pled “true” to the sole allegation in the State’s motion, which
the trial court accepted and found to be “true.” We note that proof of one violation
of the terms and conditions of a probationer’s community supervision is sufficient
to support the trial court’s revocation order. Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342
(Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Crim. App.
1980); Jones v. State, 472 S.W.3d 322, 324 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2015, pet. ref’d).
In this regard, a plea of “true” standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s
decision to revoke a probationer’s community supervision. See Garcia v. State, 387
S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex.
Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Therefore, based on our review of the record, we
agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist.1
        Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

                                                          W. STACY TROTTER
                                                          JUSTICE

January 18, 2024
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 the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68
of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

                                                     3