Jeffery Ryan Smith v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed June 27, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-23-00098-CR
__________

JEFFERY RYAN SMITH, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 104th District Court
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 21172-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found Appellant, Jeffery Ryan Smith, guilty of the third-degree felony
offense of driving while intoxicated, and assessed his punishment at confinement for
ten years in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.09(b) (West Supp. 2023).
However, following the jury’s recommendation, the trial court suspended
Appellant’s sentence, and placed him on community supervision for ten years. See
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Ann. art. 42A.055 (West 2018). As conditions of
community supervision, Appellant was required to follow all state and federal laws,
report to his community supervision officer, install and maintain an ignition
interlock1 on his motor vehicle, complete an alcohol education program, and abstain
from the consumption of alcohol and controlled substances.
The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community
supervision, then amended it, alleging that Appellant committed fifteen violations
of his community supervision. On April 6, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on
the State’s amended motion, during which Appellant pled “true” to the allegations
that he possessed and consumed Adderall without having a prescription, failed to
report and pay his supervision fee for the months of June through December of 2022,
and failed to service his ignition interlock device that resulted in a lockout.
Appellant pled “not true” to the remaining allegations. Upon the conclusion of the
hearing, the trial court found thirteen of the fifteen violations alleged to be “true.”
The trial court revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and imposed his
original sentence of confinement for ten 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

“Ignition interlock device” means a device that uses a deep-lung breath analysis mechanism to make
1

impractical the operation of a motor vehicle if ethyl alcohol is detected in the breath of the operator of the vehicle.
TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 521.241(2) (West Supp. 2023).
2
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 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 six of the 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. 2
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
June 27, 2024 JUSTICE
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68
2

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
3