In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-13-00063-CR
DAISY YANNIS, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 64th District Court
Hale County, Texas
Trial Court No. A18219-0911, Honorable Robert W. Kinkaid Jr., Presiding
July 10, 2013
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Appellant Daisy Yannis appeals from the trial court’s order revoking her
community supervision and imposing a sentence of eighteen months in a State Jail
facility. Appellant's attorney has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
403 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) and certifies that there are no non-frivolous issues to appeal.
Agreeing with appointed counsel's conclusion the record fails to show any arguably
meritorious issue that could support the appeal, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Appellant was charged via a 2009 indictment with the offense of forgery of a
financial instrument.1 Appellant plead guilty to the charge and, the trial court accepted
her plea and found her guilty. Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, the trial
court assessed a sentence including a term of eighteen months confinement in a State
Jail facility, but suspended the confinement and placed appellant on community
supervision for a period of five years. Appellant’s supervision was conditioned on her
compliance with specified terms and conditions. In November 2012, the State filed a
motion to revoke, alleging appellant violated several terms and conditions of her
community supervision.
The trial court heard the State’s motion to revoke in January 2013. At that
hearing, appellant plead "true" to each of the State's allegations. She testified,
admitting she used marijuana in violation of the terms of her supervision. She also
admitted she failed to report to her community supervision officer in Hale County by mail
as required. She further admitted to failing to pay required fees and costs and to failing
to complete her community service. She asked the court to continue her community
supervision.
Based on appellant's plea of "true" and the evidence presented before it, the
court revoked appellant's community supervision and assessed appellant’s punishment
at confinement for a period of eighteen months. The court certified appellant's right of
appeal and she timely filed notice of appeal.
1
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.21(d) (West 2012).
2
Thereafter, appellant's appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw
and a brief in support pursuant to Anders in which he certifies that he has diligently
reviewed the record and, in his professional opinion, under the controlling authorities
and facts of this case, there is no reversible error or legitimate grounds on which a non-
frivolous appeal arguably can be predicated. The brief discusses the procedural history
of the case and the proceedings in connection with the motion to revoke appellant's
community supervision. Counsel discusses the applicable law and sets forth the
reasons he believes there are no arguably meritorious issues on which to appeal.
Counsel has certified that a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw have been
served on appellant, and that counsel has advised appellant of her right to review the
record and file a pro se response. Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex.App.—
Waco 1994, pet. ref'd). By letter, this Court also notified appellant of her opportunity to
submit a response to the Anders brief and motion to withdraw filed by her counsel.
Appellant filed a response addressing her counsel's motion and brief.
In conformity with the standards set out by the United States Supreme Court, we
will not rule on the motion to withdraw until we have independently examined the record.
Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.). If this Court
determines the appeal has merit, we will remand it to the trial court for appointment of
new counsel. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).
Counsel points to a potential issue regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to
support the revocation of appellant's community supervision. Counsel concludes the
evidence was sufficient to satisfy the State's burden to prove each allegation by a
preponderance of the evidence. Appellant plead "true" to all of the State's allegations.
3
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 find also that the record provides no reason to doubt that
appellant freely, knowingly, and voluntarily entered her plea of "true" to the allegations
contained in the State's motion to revoke.
We note also the record does not support a contention that the court acted
outside the zone of reasonableness in imposing appellant's sentence as it was within
the range proscribed by the Penal Code for this offense. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §
32.21(d) (West 2012); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.35 (West 2012). See also Jordan v.
State, 495 S.W.2d 949, 952 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973); Rodriguez v. State, 917 S.W.2d 90,
92 (Tex.App..—Amarillo 1996, pet. ref'd).
Our review convinces us that appellate counsel conducted a complete review of
the record. We have also made an independent examination of the entire record,
including appellant's response, to determine whether there are any arguable grounds
which might support the appeal from the revocation and sentence. We agree the record
presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review. Accordingly, we grant counsel's
motion to withdraw2 and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
James T. Campbell
Justice
Do not publish.
2
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.
4