Saul Pena v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

Opinion filed July 18, 2024
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-23-00255-CR
__________
SAUL PENA, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 70th District Court
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. A-18-1605-CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Saul Pena, pled guilty to the offense of manufacture or delivery of
a controlled substance in penalty group one in an amount of four grams or more but
less than two-hundred grams, a first-degree felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE ANN. § 481.112(a), (d) (West Supp. 2023). On October 18, 2018, based on
the parties’ negotiated plea agreement, the trial court deferred finding Appellant
guilty, and placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period
of eight years. As conditions of his community supervision, Appellant was required,
among other things, to follow all state and federal laws, report to his community
supervision officer, and pay a $1,500 fine and court costs.
The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt and to
revoke his community supervision, alleging that Appellant committed five
violations of his community supervision conditions. On October 25, 2023, the trial
court held a hearing on the State’s motion, during which Appellant pled “true” to the
first violation alleged, and “not true” to the remaining allegations. At the hearing,
the State presented five witnesses as well as recordings of law enforcement’s dash
camera and body-worn camera footage that showed Appellant leading police on a
high-speed pursuit, which ended in a nearly fatal collision with another motorist.
Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found four of the violations
alleged to be “true,” adjudicated Appellant guilty, revoked his community
supervision, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for life in the Correctional
Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this
court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are
no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of
the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both
the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his
right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief, and of his right to
file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. As such, 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).
2
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. Here, Appellant pled “true”
to one violation alleged in the State’s motion, which the trial court accepted and
found to be “true.” We note that proof of one violation of the terms and conditions
of a probationer’s community supervision is sufficient to support the trial court’s
revocation order. Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009);
Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Jones v.
State, 472 S.W.3d 322, 324 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2015, pet. ref’d). In this regard,
a plea of “true,” standing alone, is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to
revoke a probationer’s community supervision. See Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20,
26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App.
[Panel Op.] 1979). Therefore, based on our independent review of the record, we
agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist.1
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
W. STACY TROTTER
JUSTICE
July 18, 2024
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
1
Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
3