Court Opinion

ID: 9366823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-28 06:11:18.605124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:55.391709
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed January 26, 2023

                                       In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                     ___________

                                 No. 11-22-00023-CR
                                     ___________

                 JESSIE NATHANIEL TAPIA, Appellant
                                          V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                     On Appeal from the 70th District Court
                              Ector County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. A-20-0934-CR

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Jessie Nathaniel Tapia, Appellant, originally pled guilty to the first-degree
felony offense of aggravated robbery. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2)
(West 2019). 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 ten 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 all four of the allegations in the motion. The trial
court accepted Appellant’s pleas of true, found that Appellant had violated the terms
and conditions of his deferred adjudication community supervision as alleged by the
State, revoked Appellant’s deferred adjudication community supervision, and
adjudicated Appellant guilty of the charged offense. The parties then presented
evidence regarding punishment. At the close of the punishment hearing, the trial
court assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for life 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, 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.
                                          2
See Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). When
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

January 26, 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