Court Opinion

ID: 9412314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-29 06:09:28.032548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:38.964208
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed July 27, 2023

                                      In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                   ___________

                              No. 11-22-00238-CR
                                   ___________

                     ANTHONY GIACCONE, Appellant
                                         V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                      On Appeal from the 42nd District Court
                             Taylor County, Texas
                         Trial Court Cause No. 28123-A

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
       Appellant, Anthony Giaccone, originally pled guilty to the first-degree felony
offense of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. See TEX. HEALTH
& SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(a), (d) (West 2017). In accordance with the plea
agreement, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed Appellant on
community supervision for ten years. The State later filed a motion to adjudicate
Appellant’s guilt, alleging that Appellant had violated the terms and conditions of
his deferred adjudication community supervision. At the hearing, Appellant pled
true to all twelve of the allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate. The trial
court found the allegations in the State’s motion to be true based on Appellant’s
pleas of true, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and assessed his
punishment at ten years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice. 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, a copy of the
clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and a pro se motion for access to the
appellate 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 filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief.          In his response,
Appellant asks us to “grant” him 742 days in additional credit for time served in a
drug rehabilitation facility prior to his sentence on the revocation. See TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.03 § 2(a) (West Supp. 2022). In this regard, counsel states
in his brief that he has examined the record and judgment and confirms that “the
time credits are correct.” In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court
of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an
opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or

                                          2
(2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so
that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at
409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). While we
may modify a judgment to make the record speak the truth when we have the
necessary information to do so, the record does not clearly support Appellant’s
contentions, and we cannot determine from this record that Appellant is entitled to
additional credit. 1
        The record from the hearing shows that Appellant violated the terms and
conditions of his deferred adjudication community supervision by, among other
violations, using and possessing methamphetamine, failing to report, and failing to
successfully complete the Cenikor program. 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. 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). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we
have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable
grounds for appeal exist. 2

        1
           We note that Appellant may present the issue to the trial court by way of a nunc pro tunc motion
so that the trial court may, if appropriate, issue a nunc pro tunc order authorizing the appropriate credit. See
Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147, 148–49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). If the trial court fails to respond,
Appellant may then seek relief in our court through a petition for a writ of mandamus. Id.
         2
           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
       We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.

                                                JOHN M. BAILEY
                                                CHIEF 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.

                                        4