Opinion
No. 11-19-00321-CR
07-09-2020
VICKI MORGAN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 106th District Court Gaines County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 18-4939
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Vicki Morgan, 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 her punishment at confinement for eight years and a $3,500 fine, 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. At a contested hearing on revocation, the trial court found that Appellant had violated the terms and conditions of her community supervision. The trial court then revoked Appellant's community supervision and imposed the original sentence of confinement for eight years and a fine of $3,500. 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 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 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 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 pro se 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. The record from the revocation hearing shows that, as alleged in the State's application to revoke, Appellant failed to report and also failed to make any payments toward her fine, fees, or court costs. 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). 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); 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.
The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
PER CURIAM July 9, 2020 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J. Willson, J., not participating.
Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.