Roy Eugene Peel v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

Opinion filed May 5, 2022 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________ No. 11-21-00184-CR ___________ ROY EUGENE PEEL, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 35th District Court Brown County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR27228 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Roy Eugene Peel, originally pled guilty to the second-degree felony offense of aggravated assault and true to an enhancement allegation, which made the offense punishable as a first-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2), (b) (West Supp. 2021), §12.42(b) (West 2019). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement between Appellant and the State, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt, placed Appellant on community supervision for ten years, and also assessed a fine. Four months later, the State filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt. The trial court conducted a hearing on the State’s motion, at which Appellant pled true to all but two of the allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate and four witnesses testified. The trial court found all of the State’s allegations to be true, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated Appellant guilty of the charged offense, and assessed his punishment at confinement for twenty years. 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 she 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). 2 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. 1 The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. PER CURIAM May 5, 2022 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J. 1 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. 3