Opinion filed November 22, 2017




                                      In The


        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                   ___________

                              No. 11-17-00116-CR
                                   ___________

             ALEX HERBERTO HERNANDEZ, Appellant
                                         V.
                    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


                     On Appeal from the 70th District Court
                              Ector County, Texas
                        Trial Court Cause No. A-45,162


                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Appellant, Alex Herberto Hernandez, pleaded guilty to the offense of
aggravated robbery. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court
deferred a finding of guilt and placed Appellant on community supervision for ten
years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt. At a
hearing on the motion, Appellant pleaded true to all nine of the State’s allegations.
The trial court found all of the allegations to be true, revoked Appellant’s community
supervision, adjudicated him guilty of the charged offense, and assessed his
punishment at confinement for life and a fine of $933.50. We dismiss the appeal.
        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 the
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 reporter’s record and the clerk’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his
right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. 1 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); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978);
Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436
S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex.
App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.).
        Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have
independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and
should be dismissed. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. 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).



        This court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s
        1

brief. Appellant has not filed a response.
                                                      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.
      We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that he may
file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the
attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the
opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along
with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises Appellant that he may file a
petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.
       The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.


                                                    PER CURIAM


November 22, 2017
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
Willson, J., and Bailey, J.




                                          3
