Court Opinion

ID: 9958025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-06 06:14:58.966595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:41.412519
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed April 4, 2024

                                     In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                   __________

                              No. 11-22-00327-CR
                                   __________

                       DAYSHAUN HENRY, Appellant

                                        V.

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                     On Appeal from the 104th District Court
                             Taylor County, Texas
                         Trial Court Cause No. 22158-B

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
       Appellant, Dayshaun Henry, pled guilty to the offense of sexual assault of a
child, a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.011(a)(2)(A) (West
Supp. 2023). On April 15, 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 ten 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 adjudicate Appellant’s guilt and to
revoke his community supervision, then amended it twice and proceeded against
Appellant on the second amended motion. On October 27, 2022, the trial court held
a hearing on the State’s second amended motion, during which Appellant pled “not
true” to the allegations that he failed to comply with the sex offender registration
requirements on October 15, 2021, and November 22, 2021. However, Appellant
pled “true” to the remaining eleven allegations in the State’s second amended motion
and asked the trial court to continue his community supervision.            Upon the
conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found all thirteen violations alleged in the
State’s second amended motion to be “true,” adjudicated Appellant guilty, revoked
his community supervision, and assessed Appellant’s punishment at four years’
imprisonment in the Correctional Institutions 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
           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 eleven of the thirteen violations alleged in the State’s second amended 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. [Panel Op.] 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

April 4, 2024
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

         We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68
           1

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
                                                      3