Opinion
11-22-00017-CR
08-11-2022
DREVON SMITH, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 161st District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. C-20-0538-CR
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Drevon Smith, Appellant, originally pled guilty to the third-degree felony offense of evading arrest/detention with a vehicle. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(b)(2)(A) (West 2016). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement between Appellant and the State, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed Appellant on community supervision for five years. The State later filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant's guilt. At the hearing on the State's motion to adjudicate, Appellant pled true to one of the allegations in the motion. The trial court accepted Appellant's plea and gave the parties an opportunity to present additional evidence. Then, the trial court found that Appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his deferred adjudication community supervision as alleged in the allegation to which Appellant had pled true, revoked Appellant's deferred adjudication community supervision, adjudicated Appellant guilty of the charged offense, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for five years and a fine of $1,050. 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 this 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 the clerk's record and the reporter's record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel's brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of his 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 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. 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). In this regard, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court's decision to revoke community supervision and proceed with an adjudication of guilt. See 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 Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
We grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.