Isaiah Elisa Lara v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed August 29, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
___________

No. 11-24-00253-CR
___________

ISAIAH ELIAS LARA, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 358th District Court
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. D-20-1474-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Isaiah Elias Lara, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon, a second-degree felony. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2)
(West Supp. 2024). On December 7, 2022, pursuant to the terms of a negotiated
plea agreement between Appellant and the State, the trial court deferred finding
Appellant guilty and placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision
for a period of ten years. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate
Appellant’s guilt, then amended it, alleging that Appellant committed three new
offenses in violation of his community supervision conditions. On September 10,
2024, the trial court held a hearing on the State’s amended motion, during which
Appellant pleaded “not true” to all allegations. The State called three witnesses,
then Appellant’s mother testified. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court
found all violation allegations to be “true,” adjudicated Appellant guilty, revoked his
community supervision, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for twenty
years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a
supporting brief in which he assures this court that, after conducting a professional
evaluation of the record and applicable law, 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 further certifies that he
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 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; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014);
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409–12.
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 we agree that the appeal is without merit.1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at
744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 & n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

1
Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE

August 29, 2025
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

3