NO. 07-12-0333-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
JANUARY 3, 2013
______________________________
SKYLER DANE FERGUSON, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
NO. B 18004-0904; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In July 2011, Appellant, Skyler Dane Ferguson, was placed on deferred
adjudication community supervision for eight years for possession of methamphetamine
in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200. 1 The State moved to proceed
with an adjudication of guilt in early 2012 and following a hearing, notwithstanding the
trial court’s finding that Appellant had violated the terms and conditions of community
1
TEXAS HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(d) (W EST 2010).
supervision, she was continued on community supervision with modified terms. Later in
2012, the State again moved to proceed with an adjudication of guilt for violations of her
new terms and conditions of community supervision. Following a hearing at which
Appellant entered a plea of true to the allegations, the trial court heard evidence and
adjudicated her guilty of the original offense and assessed punishment at ten years
confinement and a fine of $10,000. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an
Anders2 brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel=s motion and
affirm.
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 v. California, 386 U.S. 738,
744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406
(Tex.Crim.App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling
authorities, the appeal is frivolous. See 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 and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to
Appellant, (2) notifying her of her right to file a pro se response if she desired to do so,
and (3) informing her of her right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. 3 By letter, this Court granted Appellant an opportunity to
2
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
3
Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of her right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review
upon execution of the Trial Court=s Certification of Defendant=s Right of Appeal, counsel must comply
with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within five
2
exercise her right to file a response to counsel=s brief, should she be so inclined. Id. at
409 n.23. Appellant did not file a response. Neither did the State favor us with a brief.
By the Anders brief, counsel candidly concedes there are no arguable issues to
present to this Court. We review an appeal from a trial court's order adjudicating guilt in
the same manner as a revocation hearing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12,
§ 5(b) (W EST SUPP. 2012). When reviewing an order revoking community supervision
imposed under an order of deferred adjudication, the sole question before this 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);
Jackson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983). 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). Additionally, a plea of true
standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court=s revocation order. Moses v. State,
590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979).
days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together with
notification of her right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at
408 n.22 & at 411 n.35.
3
We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there
are any non-frivolous issues which might support the appeal. See 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. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). After reviewing
the record and counsel=s brief, we agree with counsel that there are no plausible
grounds for appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).
Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the trial court’s
judgment is affirmed.
Patrick A. Pirtle
Justice
Do not publish.
4