Court Opinion

ID: 9380427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-18 06:08:48.063686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:24.949276
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed March 16, 2023

                                       In The

          Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                    ___________

                               No. 11-22-00196-CR
                                    ___________

                RAMON GUIEAN MEIERHOFF, Appellant
                                          V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                      On Appeal from the 161st District Court
                               Ector County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. B-21-0347-CR

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
         Ramon Guiean Meierhoff, Appellant, originally pled guilty to the state jail
felony offense of evading arrest or detention with a previous conviction for the same
offense. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04(a), (b)(1) (West 2016). Pursuant to
the terms of the plea agreement between Appellant and the State, the trial court
deferred a finding of guilt and placed Appellant on community supervision for three
years.     Less than seven months later, the State filed a motion to adjudicate
Appellant’s guilt. At the hearing on the State’s motion to adjudicate, Appellant pled
true to three of the four allegations in the motion.        The trial court accepted
Appellant’s pleas of true and heard evidence on the fourth allegation. The trial court
found all four of the State’s allegations to be true, revoked Appellant’s deferred
adjudication community supervision, adjudicated Appellant guilty of the charged
offense, and assessed his punishment at confinement in a state jail facility for sixteen
months and a fine of $1,500. 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 Appellant 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 Appellant of his right
to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised
Appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review in order to
seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 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 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 proof 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.
See Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). When
                                           2
a trial court revokes deferred-adjudication community supervision and proceeds to
adjudication, “it is restricted in the sentence it imposes only by the relevant statutory
limits.” Von Schounmacher v. State, 5 S.W.3d 221, 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
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 and adjudication of guilt. Jordan v. State, 54 S.W.3d 783, 785–86 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2001); Manuel 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

March 16, 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