Analiyah Marie Gonzales v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed June 4, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

Nos. 11-24-00307-CR & 11-24-00308-CR
__________

ANALIYAH MARIE GONZALES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 358th District Court
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. D-16-1766-CR & D-16-1767-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Analiyah Marie Gonzales, was charged by separate indictments
with the first-degree felony offenses of injury to a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 22.04(e) (West Supp. 2025 ). Pursuant to the terms of a negotiated plea agreement
between Appellant and the State, the trial court placed Appellant on deferred
adjudication community supervision for a period of ten years. The State
subsequently filed motions to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt for each offense, alleging
that she had violated conditions of her community supervision in both cases. The
trial court conducted a hearing on the State’s motions, during which Appellant
pleaded “not true” to the allegations that she failed to report to her community
supervision officer in June, November, and December 2023, and in March 2024.
Appellant pleaded “true” to failing to report in January 2024. Upon the conclusion
of the contested hearing, the trial court found the allegations to be “true,” adjudicated
Appellant guilty of both offenses, and assessed her punishment at imprisonment for
fifty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
to run concurrently.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed motions to withdraw in this
court. The motions filed in each case are supported by briefs 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, 744 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09
(Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel has provided Appellant with copies of the brief,
copies of the motions to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of the clerk’s
records and reporter’s record in each case. Counsel also advised Appellant of her
right to object to counsel’s motions to withdraw, to review the record and file pro se
responses to counsel’s Anders briefs, and to file a petition for discretionary review.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5, 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 pro se responses to counsel’s Anders briefs. Following
the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed
the record and likewise conclude that the appeals are without merit. See Anders, 386
U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 & n.6 (Tex. Crim. App.
2
2005). Here, Appellant pleaded “true” to one of the violations alleged, which the
trial court accepted and found to be “true.” We note that 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.
ref’d). In this regard, a plea of “true,” standing alone, is sufficient to support a trial
court’s decision to revoke community supervision. 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.1
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motions to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgments of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE

June 4, 2026
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Williams, J., and Quinn, S.C.J. 2

Trotter, J., not participating.

We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of
1

Criminal Appeals pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.
2
Brian Quinn, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 7th District of Texas at Amarillo,
sitting by assignment.
3