Elsie Torres Franco v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed June 6, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

Nos. 11-23-00082-CR & 11-23-00084-CR
__________

ELSIE TORRES FRANCO, Appellant
V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 244th District Court
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. C-21-0765-CR & C-21-0774-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Elsie Torres Franco, pled guilty to the offenses of endangering a
child, a state jail felony, and possession of a controlled substance in penalty group
one in an amount of one gram or more but less than four grams, a third-degree felony.
See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(c) (West Supp. 2023); TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.041(c), (f) (West Supp. 2023). On May 6, 2022, the trial
court deferred finding Appellant guilty, and placed her on deferred adjudication for
a period of five years for the offense of endangering a child, and ten years for the
possession-of-a-controlled-substance charge. As conditions of her community
supervision, Appellant was required to follow all state and federal laws, report to her
community supervision officer, and pay a $550 fine in each case, court costs, and
total reimbursement fees of $1,195.
The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt and to
revoke her community supervision, then amended it, alleging that Appellant
committed five violations of her community supervision conditions in each case. On
April 13, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on the State’s first amended motion,
during which Appellant pled “not true” to the allegations that she used
methamphetamine, that she failed to complete a drug and alcohol evaluation, and
that she failed to make a minimum monthly payment toward her fees. She also pled
“not true” to the allegation that she failed to report to her community supervision
officer under cause number C-21-0765-CR. However, Appellant pled “true” to the
allegations that she used marihuana, and failed to report to her community
supervision officer in June of 2022 for her possession case, cause number C-21-
0774-CR. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found all violations
alleged in the State’s first amended motion to be “true,” except for Appellant’s
failure to pay fees, which the court found “not true.” The trial court adjudicated
Appellant guilty, revoked her community supervision, assessed Appellant’s
punishment at confinement for two years in the Correctional Institutions Division of
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for the possession offense, and
confinement for two years in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice for the offense of endangering a child. The trial court further

2
ordered the sentences to run concurrently. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.
art. 42.08(a) (West Supp. 2023).
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed motions to withdraw in this
court. The motions are supported by briefs for each cause in which counsel
professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and
concludes that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided
Appellant with copies of the briefs, copies of the motions to withdraw, an
explanatory letter, and a copy of both the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record.
Counsel also advised Appellant of her right to review the record and file a response
to counsel’s briefs, and of her 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 v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436
S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2008); 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 briefs.
Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently
reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit. Here, Appellant
pled “true” to two of the five violations alleged in the State’s first amended motion,
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 a probationer’s community supervision.
See Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Moses v. State, 590

3
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 motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE

June 6, 2024
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

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

4