Full Opinion

Opinion filed August 31, 2026 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-25-00219-CR __________ BARIHENUYE TWEHANGANE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 104th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 23227-B MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Barihenuye Twehangane, pled “no contest” to the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2), (b) (West 2026). Pursuant to the terms of a negotiated plea agreement between Appellant and the State, the trial court accepted Appellant’s plea and placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for five years. The record shows that the terms and conditions of Appellant’s community supervision were modified on five occasions. Despite this, and after previously filed motions to adjudicate and to revoke were dismissed, the State filed its third amended motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt and to revoke his community supervision, alleging that Appellant had committed sixteen violations of the terms and conditions of his community supervision. The trial court held a hearing on the State’s amended motion, and Appellant initially pled “true” to all allegations. However, a contested hearing was subsequently held at which time Appellant changed his pleas to the asserted allegations to “not true.” Upon the conclusion of the contested hearing, and after considering the evidence presented, the trial court found the allegations in the State’s amended motion, except for allegations 3, 11, 12, 13, and 14, to be “true.” The trial court thereafter adjudicated Appellant’s guilt, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this court, supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are no meritorious or arguable issues to present on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and copies of the clerk’s and reporter’s records. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to (1) object to counsel’s motion, (2) review the record, (3) file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief, and (4) file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5, 68. As such, court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders, 386 U.S. at 742–44; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 409–12; and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 2 Appellant did not file a response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record and the brief, and we conclude that this appeal is without merit. In an adjudication/revocation proceeding, the State need only prove a violation of a term or condition of community supervision by a preponderance of the evidence—the greater weight of credible evidence that would create a reasonable belief that the probationer has violated a term or condition of his community supervision. Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Scamardo v. State, 517 S.W.2d 293, 298 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Guillory v. State, 652 S.W.3d 923, 928 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2022, pet. ref’d). In this setting, the trial court, as the trier of the facts, is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be afforded their testimony, and may resolve any inconsistencies in their testimony. Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Naquin v. State, 607 S.W.2d 583, 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Although we review a trial court’s adjudication/revocation decision(s) under an abuse of discretion standard, see Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493, we review the evidence presented at an adjudication/revocation proceeding in the light most favorable to the trial court’s rulings. Hacker, 389 S.W.3d at 865; Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Here, the evidence presented at the contested hearing is sufficient to support each finding of “true” made by the trial court. See Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 764. It is well-settled that proof of only a single violation of the terms and conditions of a probationer’s community supervision is sufficient to support the trial court’s adjudication/revocation order. Bryant v. State, 391 S.W.3d 86, 93 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Sanchez v. State, 603 3 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); Hart v. State, 264 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2008, pet. ref’d). Therefore, based on our review of the record, we agree with counsel that no meritorious or arguable grounds for appeal exist.1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. W. STACY TROTTER JUSTICE August 31, 2026 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 with the Court of 1 Criminal Appeals pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. 4