In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-14-00220-CR
DEMUS FLORES, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 242nd District Court
Hale County, Texas
Trial Court No. B18264-1001, Honorable Edward Lee Self, Presiding
January 14, 2015
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Appellant Demus Flores appeals from the trial court’s order revoking his deferred
adjudication community supervision, adjudicating him guilty of the offense of burglary of
a habitation1 and sentencing him to twenty years of imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02 (West 2012).
In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders2 brief in support of a motion to
withdraw. We will grant counsel’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a
conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no
potentially plausible basis to support an appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel discusses why, under
the controlling authorities, the appeal is frivolous. 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 by providing to appellant a copy of the brief, motion to withdraw,
clerk’s and reporter’s records, and notifying him of his right to file a pro se response if
he desired to do so. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. By letter, we granted appellant an opportunity to
exercise his right to file a response to counsel's brief. Appellant did not file a response.
By the Anders brief, counsel raises the following potential issues: (1) error in the
indictment; (2) error in the original guilty plea, including the provision of admonishments;
(3) competency of appellant to enter a plea; (4) voluntariness of plea; (5) error in the
motion to revoke community supervision, including the provision of admonishments; (6)
error in sentencing; and (7) ineffective assistance of counsel. Counsel then explains that
reversible error is not presented and there are no good faith grounds to support the
appeal. We agree.
2
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
2
When reviewing an order revoking community supervision, the sole question
before the appellate court is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Rickels v.
State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492,
493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). In a revocation proceeding, the State must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the probationer violated a condition of community
supervision as alleged in the motion. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1993). If the State fails to meet its burden of proof, the trial court abuses its
discretion in revoking community supervision. Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 494. In
determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a revocation, we view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Jones v. State, 589 S.W.2d
419, 421 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).
Appellant plead guilty in 2010 to the second-degree felony offense of burglary of
a habitation. The court placed appellant on deferred adjudication community
supervision for a period of four years. His community supervision was subject to certain
terms and conditions.
Thereafter, the State filed several motions to proceed with an adjudication of
appellant’s guilt. In its March 2014 motion, the State alleged appellant tested positive
for marijuana on multiple occasions; tested positive for cocaine; failed to pay required
fees; and failed to report as ordered for seven months. At the May 2014 hearing on the
motion, appellant plead “true” to each of the State’s allegations. Appellant’s community
supervision officer testified to appellant’s commission of two criminal offenses during his
time on community supervision and recommended that appellant’s community
3
supervision be revoked. After finding the State’s allegations to be true, the court heard
evidence pertaining to sentencing and assessed the punishment noted.
Counsel concludes the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking
appellant’s community supervision, and we agree. Appellant plead “true” to the
allegations in the State’s motion. A plea of "true" to even one allegation in the State's
motion is sufficient to support a judgment revoking community supervision. Cole v.
State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Lewis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 205,
209 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. denied).
We further agree with counsel in concluding the record does not support a
contention the court acted outside the zone of reasonableness in imposing appellant's
sentence as it was within the range prescribed by the Penal Code for this offense. See
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02 (West 2012); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.34 (West
2012).
We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there
are any non-frivolous issues which might support the appeal. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 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. After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree with counsel that there
are no plausible grounds for appeal. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005).
4
Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted3 and the trial court's
judgment is affirmed.
James T. Campbell
Justice
Do not publish.
3
Counsel 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. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
5