William Austin Young v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-22-00189-CR
WILLIAM AUSTIN YOUNG, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 46th District Court
Wilbarger County, Texas
Trial Court No. 12,377, Honorable Dan Mike Bird, Presiding
November 15, 2022
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER, and YARBROUGH, JJ.
Before this Court is a motion to withdraw supported by a brief filed pursuant to
Anders v. California.1 Pursuant to a plea agreement, in March 2019, Appellant, William
Austin Young, was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for five years
for burglary of a habitation. In June 2022, the State moved to proceed with adjudication
for violations of certain conditions of community supervision. The trial court heard
testimony on the alleged violations and subsequently ruled that Appellant had violated
1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
some conditions, revoked his community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of the
charged offense, and sentenced him to eighteen years’ confinement.
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a
conscientious examination of the record, and in his opinion, it reflects no potentially
plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744–45; In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses
why, under the controlling authorities, the record supports that conclusion. See High v.
State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated that he
has complied with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy
of the brief to Appellant, (2) notifying him of the right to file a pro se response if he desired
to do so, and (3) informing him of the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. By letter, this Court granted Appellant an opportunity
to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief, should he be so inclined. Id. at
409 n.23. Appellant did not file a response.
When reviewing an order revoking community supervision imposed under an order
of deferred adjudication, the sole question before this Court is whether the trial court
abused its discretion. Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). The
finding of a single violation of community supervision is sufficient to support revocation.
Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Additionally, a plea of true
standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s revocation order. Moses v. State, 590
S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).
By the Anders brief, counsel presents a thorough evaluation of the record and
concedes that reversible error is not present. He acknowledges that Appellant’s pleas of
2
true standing alone were sufficient for the trial court to revoke Appellant’s community
supervision.
We too have independently examined the record to determine whether there are
any non-frivolous issues which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409;
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have found no such
issues. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). After
reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree with counsel that there is no plausible
basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–
27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
The trial court’s Judgment Adjudicating Guilt is affirmed and counsel’s motion to
withdraw is granted.2
Alex L. Yarbrough
Justice
Do not publish.
2 Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal, counsel must comply
with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within five days
after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together with
notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408
n.22, 411 n.35. The duty to send the client a copy of this Court’s decision is an informational one, not a
representational one. It is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of
appeals has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. Id. at 411 n.33
3