Full Opinion

Opinion filed August 13, 2026 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-25-00305-CR __________ LEONEL NOE TORRES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 358th District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D-21-1820-CR MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Appellant, Leonel Noe Torres, of two counts of intoxication manslaughter, second-degree felonies. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.08 (West 2011). The jury assessed Appellant’s punishment for each count at ten years’ imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and recommended the terms be suspended. The trial court ordered Appellant’s sentences suspended and placed Appellant on community supervision for ten years. The State subsequently moved to revoke Appellant’s community supervision, alleging that Appellant had committed four violations of the terms and conditions of his community supervision. In its first amended motion, the State alleged Appellant had committed three new offenses in violation of Rule (a) of the rules of community supervision and failed to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings as directed by his community supervision officer in violation of Rule (5) of the rules of community supervision. The trial court held a hearing on the State’s motion, during which Appellant pled “not true” to all of the allegations. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found the fourth allegation in the State’s motion to be “true,” revoked Appellant’s community supervision, imposed a term of imprisonment of ten years for each count, and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. 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 grounds 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). Appellant has not filed 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 a 2 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 fact, 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 revocation decision 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 a 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, Appellant’s community supervision officer testified that Appellant had been instructed to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings twice a week and he had not attended as instructed. The evidence presented at the hearing, although contested, is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of “true.” See Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 764. 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 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 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). 3 Therefore, based on our review of the record, we agree with counsel that no 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). However, we note that the trial court’s judgments each contain a nonreversible error. While the judgments correctly list the offense for which Appellant was convicted of as “intoxication manslaughter,” it incorrectly states that the “Statute for Offense” is Texas Penal Code § 31.03(e)(4)(A). Section 31.03 concerns the offense of theft. PENAL § 31.03. We have the authority to modify and reform the trial court’s judgments so that they speak the truth. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Copeland v. State, No. 11-22-00216- CR, 2023 WL 4769637, at *2 (Tex. App.—Eastland July 27, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgments to recite that the “Statute for Offense” is Texas Penal Code § 49.08. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgments of the trial court as modified. W. BRUCE WILLIAMS JUSTICE August 13, 2026 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J. 1 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 4