Anthony Craig Rouswell v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

Opinion filed July 25, 2024
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
Nos. 11-24-00044-CR & 11-24-00045-CR
__________
ANTHONY CRAIG ROUSWELL, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 50th District Court
Baylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 5642 & 5663
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Anthony Craig Rouswell, originally pled guilty to two offenses:
(1) the third-degree felony offense of possession of a controlled substance in a drug
free zone, and (2) the state jail felony offense of theft. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE § 481.134(d) (West Supp. 2023); TEX. PENAL CODE § 31.03(e)(4)(A) (West
Supp. 2023). Pursuant to the terms of a plea bargain agreement between Appellant
and the State, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed Appellant on
community supervision for a period of five years for each offense. The State
subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt.
At the hearing on the State’s motion to adjudicate, Appellant pled true to six
of the allegations in the motion. The State waived the remaining allegations. The
trial court accepted Appellant’s pleas and then permitted the State and Appellant to
present evidence for punishment. At the end of the hearing, the trial court found that
Appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his deferred adjudication
community supervision as alleged in the six allegations to which Appellant had pled
true, revoked Appellant’s deferred adjudication community supervision, adjudicated
Appellant guilty of the charged offense, and assessed his punishment at
imprisonment for ten years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice (TDCJ) for the offense of possession of a controlled substance in a
drug free zone and two years in the State Jail Division of TDCJ for the theft offense.
We affirm.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in each
case. The motions are supported by briefs in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the records 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 briefs, a copy of the motions to withdraw, an
explanatory letter, and a copy of the clerk’s records 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).
2
Appellant has not filed a response to counsel’s Anders briefs. 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).
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). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have
independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable
grounds for appeal exist. 1
We grant counsel’s motions to withdraw, and we affirm the judgments of the
trial court.
W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
JUSTICE
July 25, 2024
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