Eithan Max Collins v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed June 27, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-23-00108-CR
__________

EITHAN MAX COLLINS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 90th District Court
Stephens County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F35668

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Eithan Max Collins, pled guilty to the offense of burglary of a
habitation, a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(c)(2) (West
2019). On December 20, 2018, based on the parties negotiated plea agreement, the
trial court deferred finding Appellant guilty, and placed him on deferred adjudication
community supervision for a period of three years. As conditions of his community
supervision, Appellant was required, among other things, to follow all state and
federal laws, report to his community supervision officer, and pay a $1,500 fine and
court costs.
The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt and to
revoke his community supervision, then amended it twice. The State’s second
amended motion alleged that Appellant had committed forty-one violations of his
community supervision conditions, including six new criminal offenses. On
April 27, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on the State’s second amended motion,
during which Appellant pled “not true” to fifteen allegations and “true” to twenty-
three allegations; the State waived the remaining allegations. The trial court found
twenty-two of the violations alleged to be “true,” adjudicated Appellant guilty, and
heard evidence prior to assessing Appellant’s punishment. Upon the conclusion of
the hearing, the trial court found Appellant guilty of the indicted offense, revoked
his community supervision, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for twenty
years 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 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 fifteen violations alleged 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.1
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

W. STACY TROTTER
JUSTICE

June 27, 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