Opinion
11-21-00247-CR 11-21-00248-CR
09-08-2022
BRADERICK BENET CHRISTIAN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 104th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 20307-B & 21047-B
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Appellant, Braderick Benet Christian, originally pleaded guilty to the first-degree felony offense of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (between four and 200 grams of methamphetamine) and the third-degree felony offense of unlawful restraint. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(d) (West 2017); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 20.02(c)(2)(A) (West Supp. 2021). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement in each cause, the trial court convicted Appellant; assessed his punishment at imprisonment for ten years and a $1,000 fine; suspended the imposition of confinement; and placed Appellant on community supervision for ten years. The State filed motions to revoke Appellant's community supervision. At a hearing on the motions, the State waived the first two allegations in each motion to revoke, and Appellant pled not true to the remaining allegations. The State presented evidence in support of the allegations to which Appellant had pled not true. At the end of the hearing, the trial court found all of those allegations to be true, revoked Appellant's community supervision, and imposed a reduced sentence of imprisonment for eight years in each cause, to run concurrently. We affirm.
Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to withdraw as counsel in both appeals. Each motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the records and applicable law and concludes that there are no arguable issues to raise on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the briefs, a copy of the motions to withdraw, and a form motion for pro se access to the appellate records-along with instructions and this court's address. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the record in each cause 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 records, and we agree that the appeals are frivolous. 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 or the 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 records, 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.
The motion to withdraw is granted in each cause, and the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.