Court Opinion

ID: 9840328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-16 06:08:29.619484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:25:08.325009
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed September 14, 2023

                                     In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                   ___________

                              No. 11-22-00275-CR
                                   ___________

                    TOBY DON NARLOCK, Appellant
                                        V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 142nd District Court
                           Midland County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. CR52349

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Appellant, Toby Don Narlock, originally pled guilty to the third-degree felony
offense of driving while intoxicated. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.09(b)(2)
(West Supp. 2022). On February 22, 2019, pursuant to the terms of the plea
agreement between Appellant and the State, the trial court sentenced Appellant to
ten years of imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice (TDCJ) with a $750 fine, suspended the imposition of confinement,
and placed Appellant on community supervision for four years. As conditions of his
community supervision, Appellant was required to serve ten days in jail and
successfully complete the Midland County Adult Felony Drug Court program.
      The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community
supervision. On April 22, 2021, the trial court continued Appellant’s community
supervision but modified its terms to include (1) seventy-five days in jail until his
transfer to the Roy D. Anderson Men’s Community Corrections Facility, (2) service
of an indeterminate term of not less than two weeks or more than twenty-four months
in the facility and, among other conditions, abide by the rules and regulations of the
facility, and (3) successful completion of the Midland County Transitional
Treatment Court program upon his release from the facility.
       The State later filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision
on February 15, 2022. At the hearing on the State’s motion to revoke, Appellant
pled “not true” to the State’s allegations, and the State presented evidence in support
of its motion. The trial court found both of the State’s allegations to be “true,”
revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and assessed his punishment at six
years of confinement in the Institutional Division of TDCJ. 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 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
with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court.
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.

                                          2
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 pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. In his response,
Appellant states that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation,
claims that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel, and states
that his due process rights were denied “in the original charging instrument” and
during the proceedings. In addressing an Anders brief and a 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) 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).
      Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have
independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that the appeal is
without merit. The record from the revocation hearing shows that Appellant failed
to successfully complete, and obey all the rules and regulations of, the program at
the Roy D. Anderson Men’s Community Corrections Facility and that he was
“unsuccessfully” terminated from that facility. The record further shows that
Appellant was “unsuccessfully” discharged from the Midland County Transitional
Treatment Court program for failure to abide by the terms and conditions of the
program. 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). 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); Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658,

                                          3
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
        Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

                                                         W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
                                                         JUSTICE

September 14, 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.

                                                    4