Akira Harrison v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed June 6, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-23-00033-CR
__________

AKIRA HARRISON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 70th District Court
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. A-22-1234-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Akira Harrison, pled guilty to the offense of aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 22.02(a)(2) (West Supp. 2023). On January 3, 2023, pursuant to the terms of a
negotiated plea agreement between Appellant and the State, the trial court deferred
finding Appellant guilty, and placed her on deferred adjudication community
supervision for a period of four years. As conditions of her community supervision,
Appellant was required, among other things, to follow all state and federal laws, and
abstain from using “any and all [d]rugs, [n]arcotics, [i]ntoxicating beverages, or any
other chemical substance which might cause intoxication or other side effect.”
The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt and to
revoke her community supervision, alleging that Appellant violated her community
supervision by using Fentanyl, an illegal controlled substance. See TEX. HEALTH &
SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.1022 (West Supp. 2023). On February 21, 2023, the trial
court held a hearing on the State’s motion, during which Appellant pled “true” to the
allegation that she used Fentanyl on or about January 9, 2023. The trial court found
the violation alleged in the State’s motion to be “true,” adjudicated Appellant guilty,
revoked her community supervision, and assessed Appellant’s punishment at ten
years’ imprisonment in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice.
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. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of
the brief, a copy of the motion 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 brief, and of her right to
file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Therefore, 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).

2
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. Here, Appellant pled “true”
to the single violation alleged in the State’s 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 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim.
App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Therefore, based on our 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.

W. STACY TROTTER
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.

3