Rickey Lee Roberson v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed July 18, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-23-00268-CR
__________

RICKEY LEE ROBERSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 50th District Court
Knox County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 4039

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Rickey Lee Roberson, pleaded guilty to the offense of theft in an
amount of greater than $1,500 but less than $20,000, a state jail felony.1 See TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(A) (West 2013). On February 11, 2020, the
trial court found Appellant guilty, assessed his punishment at confinement for two

1
Section 31.03 of the Penal Code was amended in 2015. See Act of May 31, 2015, 84th Leg., R.S.,
ch. 1251, § 10 (H.B. 1396), eff. Sept. 1, 2015. Under the current version of the theft statute, it is a state jail
felony to appropriate property valued between $2,500 and $30,000. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 31.03(e)(4)(A) (West Supp. 2023). The prior version applied at the time Appellant committed the offense.
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
follow all state and federal laws, report to his community supervision officer, and
pay a $2,500 fine and monthly supervision fees.
The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community
supervision, then amended it, alleging that Appellant violated four of his community
supervision conditions on several occasions. On October 3, 2023, the trial court held
a hearing on the State’s amended motion, during which Appellant pled “true” to the
violations alleged. The trial court accepted Appellant’s pleas of “true,” and the
parties presented punishment evidence. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the trial
court revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and assessed punishment at
confinement for one year and 198 days in the State Jail Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant was not ordered to pay the original fine
or restitution.
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 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 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 allegations in the State’s 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 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 we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE

July 18, 2024
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

2
Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
3