Opinion
No. 11-17-00194-CR
05-17-2018
DANINI MARIE-DAVIS JACKSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 104th District Court Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 20362B
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Danini Marie-Davis Jackson, originally pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of cocaine, a state jail felony. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed Appellant on community supervision for three years. The State later filed a motion to revoke community supervision and adjudicate Appellant's guilt. At a hearing on the motion, the State waived its first allegation, and Appellant pleaded true to the remainder of the State's allegations. The trial court found those allegations to be true, revoked Appellant's community supervision, adjudicated her guilty of the charged offense, and assessed her punishment at confinement in a state jail facility for fifteen months. 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 this appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. Counsel advised Appellant of her right to review the record and file a response to counsel's brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of her 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. 48.4, 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); 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.).
We note that this court granted Appellant more than thirty days in which to exercise her right to file a response to counsel's brief and that Appellant has not filed a response.
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. See 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 and to proceed with an adjudication of guilt. See 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. 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 68.
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM May 17, 2018 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Willson, J.,
Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J.
Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.