Court Opinion

ID: 9412302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-29 06:09:18.27134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:38.945311
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed July 27, 2023

                                      In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                   __________

                              No. 11-22-00216-CR
                                  __________

                JEFFREY ALLEN COPELAND, Appellant
                                        V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                      On Appeal from the 50th District Court
                              Knox County, Texas
                           Trial Court Cause No. 4152

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
       Jeffrey Allen Copeland, Appellant, originally pled guilty to the third-degree
felony offense of evading arrest or detention in a motor vehicle. See TEX. PENAL
CODE ANN. § 38.04(a), (b)(2)(A) (West 2016).         Pursuant to the terms of the
negotiated plea agreement between Appellant and the State, the trial court sentenced
Appellant to ten years imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), suspended that sentence, and placed
Appellant on community supervision for five years. The State later filed a motion
to revoke Appellant’s community supervision that alleged nineteen violations of
such supervision. At the hearing on the State’s motion to revoke, Appellant pled
true to five of the allegations. The trial court subsequently found eight of the
allegations true, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and assessed his
punishment at ten years imprisonment in the Institutional Division of TDCJ. We
affirm.
      Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to
withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the
appeal is frivolous and without merit. 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 and of his right to file a petition for
discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. 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 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. The record from the
revocation hearing shows that Appellant failed to avoid places where alcoholic
beverages are possessed, sold, or used; failed to report; had ignition interlock
“lockouts” and removal; failed to provide proof of an outpatient treatment program;
and failed to pay the fine, court costs, and community supervision fees that the trial
court assessed against him. We note that proof of one violation of the terms and
conditions of 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). In
                                          2
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. [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. Jordan v. State, 54 S.W.3d
783, 785–86 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Based upon our review of the record, we agree
with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist.1
        However, we note that the trial court’s judgment incorrectly reflects the statute
for the offense for which Appellant was convicted. We have the authority to modify
the trial court’s judgment to correctly show the trial court proceedings when we have
the necessary information to do so. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865
S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Therefore, we modify the trial court’s
judgment to show that the “Statute for [the] Offense” is “TEXAS PENAL CODE
§ 38.04(a), (b)(2)(A).”
        Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court as modified.

                                                         W. STACY TROTTER
                                                         JUSTICE

July 27, 2023
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.

                                                    3