Opinion
11-22-00036-CR
09-08-2022
SERBANDO SANCHEZ, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 244thDistrict Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. A-20-0854-CR
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Serbando Sanchez, Appellant, originally pled guilty to the first-degree felony offense of manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance (between four and 200 grams of cocaine). See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(d) (West 2017). 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 seven years. The State later filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant's guilt. At the hearing on the State's motion to adjudicate, Appellant pled true to five of the allegations in the motion. The trial court then inquired as to whether either the State or Appellant wished to present evidence. Neither did. After hearing closing arguments, 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 in the five allegations to which Appellant had pled true, revoked Appellant's deferred adjudication community supervision, adjudicated Appellant guilty of the charged offense, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for eighteen years. 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. 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 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 Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
We grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.