David Albert Rodriguez v. State of Texas

Opinion filed May 10, 2012 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-12-00005-CR __________ DAVID ALBERT RODRIGUEZ, Appellant V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 358th District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D-35,611 MEMORANDUM OPINION David Albert Rodriguez, pleaded guilty in September 2009 to four counts of criminal mischief. In accordance with a plea agreement, the trial court assessed his punishment at confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of two years on each count with the sentences to run concurrently. However, the trial court suspended the imposition of the sentences and placed appellant on community supervision for a term of two years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke community supervision alleging numerous violations of the terms and conditions of appellant’s community supervision. The trial court considered the motion at a hearing conducted on October 3, 2011. Appellant entered a plea of “true” to all of the alleged violations at the outset of the hearing. After considering evidence pertaining to punishment, the trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision and assessed his punishment at confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of two years. 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 he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. A response has not been filed.1 Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); 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. 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 re- viewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. In this regard, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision. See Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). 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. 1 By letter, this court granted appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief. 2 The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. PER CURIAM May 10, 2012 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Kalenak, J. 3