Opinion
No. 11-15-00301-CR
04-14-2016
On Appeal from the 106th District Court Dawson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 11-7043
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Angel Flores, pleaded guilty to the second-degree felony offense of burglary of a habitation. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court convicted Appellant of the offense, assessed his punishment at confinement for ten years and a $1,500 fine, ordered restitution in the amount of $5,000, suspended the confinement portion of the sentence, and placed Appellant on community supervision for eight years. Subsequently, the State filed an application to revoke community supervision. After a contested hearing on revocation, the trial court found the State's allegations to be true, revoked Appellant's community supervision, sentenced him to confinement for eight years, and imposed a fine of $1,500 and restitution in the amount of $5,000. 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 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, and a copy of both the reporter's record and 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. 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). The record from the revocation hearing shows that Appellant admitted to the alleged violations of the terms and conditions of his community supervision but offered explanations for his violations. His community supervision officer testified about various violations by Appellant of the terms and conditions of his community supervision as alleged in the State's application to revoke, including Appellant's failure to report and failure to perform community supervision. Appellant made no evidentiary objections at the revocation hearing. Based upon our review of the record, we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist.
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.