Opinion filed January 26, 2012
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-11-00224-CR
__________
CESAR CHAVEZ GARCIA, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 70th District Court
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. A-36,416
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Cesar Chavez Garcia pleaded guilty in 2009 to the offense of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt, placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for a term of five years, and assessed a fine of $500. In 2011, the State filed a motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt, alleging multiple violations of the terms and conditions of community supervision. The trial court heard the motion to proceed on July 7, 2011. Appellant pleaded “true” to all of the alleged violations except one that the State abandoned. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found the remaining allegations to be true, adjudicated appellant guilty of the charged offense, and assessed his punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of fifteen years and a fine of $500. 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 reviewed 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 and proceed with an adjudication of guilt. 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.
The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM
January 26, 2012
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.
[1]By letter, this court granted appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief.