Opinion
No. 11-15-00299-CR
04-14-2016
GINO NATHAN TREVINO, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 106th District Court Dawson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 14-7363
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Gino Nathan Trevino, originally pleaded guilty to the third-degree felony offense of continuous violence against the family. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court convicted Appellant, assessed his punishment, placed him on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a fine of $1,500. The State subsequently filed an application to revoke Appellant's community supervision. At the revocation hearing, Appellant pleaded "true" to all but one of the State's allegations. The trial court found all but two of the twelve allegations to be true, revoked Appellant's community supervision, sentenced him to confinement for ten years, and imposed the original fine of $1,500. We dismiss the appeal.
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 no reversible error exists and that the 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 reporter's record, and a copy of the clerk's record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel's brief. Appellant has not filed a response.
This court granted Appellant more than thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel's brief. --------
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); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.).
Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. In this regard, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court's decision to revoke community supervision. 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); Traylor v. State, 561 S.W.2d 492, 494 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 ("In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant's right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68."). Likewise, this court advises Appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.
The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM April 14, 2016 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
Willson, J., and Bailey, J.