Marquee Anthony Aboso v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

Opinion filed September 19, 2024
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-24-00090-CR
__________
MARQUEE ANTHONY ABOSO, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 42nd District Court
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 28478A
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Marquee Anthony Aboso, pled guilty to possession of
methamphetamine with intent to deliver in an amount of four grams or more but
less than two-hundred grams, a first-degree felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE ANN. §§ 481.102(6), 481.112(a), (d) (West Supp. 2023). Pursuant to the terms
of a negotiated plea agreement between Appellant and the State, the trial court
sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for ten years in the Institutional Division of
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, but suspended the imposition of the
sentence, and placed Appellant on community supervision for a period of ten years.
Appellant’s conditions of community supervision required him to, among other
things, wear a global positioning system (GPS) tracking device, abstain from using
alcohol and narcotics, abide by a 6:00 p.m. curfew, and surrender to the Taylor
County Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF).
The State subsequently moved to revoke Appellant’s community supervision,
alleging that he committed thirty-three violations of the conditions of his community
supervision. On March 21, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the State’s motion,
during which Appellant pled “not true” to every allegation. However, after the State
presented its witnesses, Appellant testified, and admitted to violating several
conditions of his community supervision. Specifically, Appellant admitted to using
alcohol, marihuana, and cocaine. He likewise agreed that he failed to charge his
GPS monitor, report to SATF, did not abide by his curfew, and possessed a firearm
as a convicted felon. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found sixteen
of the allegations to be “true,” revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and
imposed the originally assessed ten-year term of imprisonment.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this
court, supported by an Anders 1 brief in which counsel asserts that, based on his
review of the record and the applicable law, no meritorious or arguable grounds for
appeal exist. Counsel 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
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
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2
complied with the requirements of Anders, 386 U.S. at 741–44; 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 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, although Appellant
pled “not true” to the allegations in the State’s motion, he testified that he violated
several conditions of his community supervision, which the trial court found to be
“true.” Proof of one violation of the terms and conditions of a probationer’s
community supervision is sufficient to support the trial court’s order of revocation.
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). Therefore, based on our review of
the record, we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist.2
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm the judgment
of the trial court.
W. STACY TROTTER
JUSTICE
September 19, 2024
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
2
Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
3