Martin Dewayne Walters v. State ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • Opinion filed December 8, 2016
    In The
    Eleventh Court of Appeals
    ___________
    No. 11-16-00182-CR
    ___________
    MARTIN DEWAYNE WALTERS, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 358th District Court
    Ector County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. D-39,916
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Appellant, Martin Dewayne Walters, originally pleaded guilty to the third-
    degree felony offense of driving while intoxicated. Pursuant to the terms of the plea
    agreement, the trial court convicted Appellant, assessed his punishment, and placed
    him on community supervision for five years. The State subsequently filed a motion
    to revoke Appellant’s community supervision. At the revocation hearing, Appellant
    pleaded true to both of the allegations contained in the State’s motion to revoke. The
    trial court found the allegations to be true, revoked Appellant’s community
    supervision, and sentenced him to confinement for five years in the Institutional
    Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 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, a copy of the
    reporter’s record, and a copy of 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 pro se response.1
    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. 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. 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
    1
    This court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s
    brief.
    2
    (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. Jordan v. State, 
    54 S.W.3d 783
    , 785–86
    (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Traylor v. State, 
    561 S.W.2d 492
    , 494 (Tex. Crim. App.
    [Panel Op.] 1978). 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
    December 8, 2016
    Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
    Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
    Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
    3