Sir Thomas Gaither v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed May 30, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-24-00151-CR
__________

SIR THOMAS GAITHER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 235th District Court
Cooke County, Texas 1
Trial Court Cause No. CR19-00555

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Sir Thomas Gaither, pleaded guilty to tampering with a
governmental record, a state jail felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 37.10(c)(1)

1
This appeal was transferred to this court from the Second Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket
equalization order issued by the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West Supp.
2024). We decide this case in accordance with the precedent of the Second Court of Appeals under the
principle of stare decisis. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
(West Supp. 2024). On September 16, 2021, pursuant to the terms of a negotiated
plea agreement between Appellant and the State, the trial court found Appellant
guilty, assessed his punishment at confinement for two years in the State Jail
Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, suspended his sentence, and
placed him on community supervision for a period of five years. As conditions of
his community supervision, Appellant was required to, inter alia, follow all state and
federal laws, abstain from using or possessing illegal substances, submit to urinalysis
drug screens, complete a drug offender education program (DOEP), and complete
180 hours of community service. Following Appellant’s arrest on March 17, 2023
for possession with intent to use a device designed to falsify drug test results, the
trial court ordered Appellant to surrender to the Cooke County Jail on May 26, 2023
to serve a fifteen-day jail sanction. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN.
§ 481.133(a) (West 2017). Appellant did not turn himself in, and the State
subsequently moved to revoke his community supervision based on five alleged
violations.
The trial court held a hearing on March 26, 2024, during which the State orally
amended its motion to revoke; Appellant’s counsel had no objection to the
amendment and announced that he was ready to proceed. Appellant pleaded “true”
to the allegation that he used marihuana, and “not true” to the remaining allegations.
The State called two witnesses, then Appellant testified. Appellant admitted to the
trial court that he did not complete his community service hours, did not participate
in DOEP, failed to report for his jail sanction, and attempted to falsify his drug test
results because he “was dirty.” Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court
found all six violations alleged to be “true,” revoked Appellant’s community
supervision, and imposed the original sentence of confinement for two years in the

2
State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The trial court
further ordered Appellant to pay the balance of the originally assessed $1,500 fine.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this
court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law, and concludes that there are
no arguable issues to present on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel
has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw,
an explanatory letter, and a copy of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record.
Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response
to counsel’s brief, and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. As such, court-appointed counsel has complied with the
requirements of Anders, 386 U.S. at 742–44, Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2014), Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409–12, and Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following
the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed
the record, and likewise conclude that the appeal is without merit. See Anders, 386
U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 & n.6 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005). Here, although Appellant pleaded “not true” to all but one allegation in the
State’s motion, he testified that he violated several conditions of his community
supervision, which the trial court found to be “true.” Proof of one violation of the
terms and conditions of a probationer’s community supervision is sufficient to
support the trial court’s revocation order. Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2009); Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1980); Jones v. State, 472 S.W.3d 322, 324 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2015, pet.

3
ref’d). In this regard, Appellant’s plea of “true” to a single violation, standing alone,
was sufficient to support the trial court’s revocation order. See Garcia v. State, 387
S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex.
Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Therefore, based on our independent review of the
record, we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist.2
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm the judgment
of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE

May 30, 2025
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of
2

Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

4