Opinion
No. 11-19-00226-CR
01-16-2020
ANGEL ANTHONY CANTU, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 29th District Court Palo Pinto County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 15494
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Angel Anthony Cantu, originally pleaded guilty to the state jail felony offense of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in an amount of less than one gram. Pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement, the trial court convicted Appellant, assessed his punishment at confinement in a state jail facility for two years and a $1,500 fine, suspended the imposition of confinement, and placed Appellant on community supervision for five years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Appellant's community supervision. At a hearing on the motion, Appellant pleaded not true to the allegations, and the State called three witnesses to testify in support of the motion. The trial court found all but one of the State's allegations to be true, revoked Appellant's community supervision, and imposed the original sentence of confinement in a state jail facility for two years and a fine of $1,500. We affirm.
Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to withdraw as counsel on appeal. 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 in this appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, and a form motion for pro se access to the 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 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. 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 frivolous. The record reflects that the State called three witnesses and presented exhibits in support of the allegations in the motion to revoke. We note that proof of one violation of the terms and conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support revocation. See 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 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.
We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.
The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
PER CURIAM January 16, 2020 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J. Willson, J., not participating.
Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.