Full Opinion

Opinion filed July 30, 2026 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-25-00212-CR __________ MARISSA JIMENEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 106th District Court Dawson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 22-8822 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Marissa Jimenez, pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance in an amount less than one gram. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(b) (West Supp. 2025). Pursuant to the terms of a negotiated plea agreement between Appellant and the State, the trial court placed Appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of four years. The State subsequently moved to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt. In an amended motion, the State alleged that in violation of Rule 2 of the rules of community supervision, Appellant had committed three new offenses: tampering with evidence, possession of a controlled substance, and drug test falsification. The State additionally alleged that Appellant had tested positive for drugs on or about September 21, 2023, October 19, 2023, November 24, 2023, December 21, 2023, February 15, 2024, and April 24, 2025, in violation of Rule 4 of the rules of community supervision. Appellant was also alleged to have failed to pay various fees in violation of Rule 16, 18, 27 of the rules of community supervision; perform community service hours in violation of Rule 20 of the rules of community supervision; successfully complete an outpatient program in violation of Rule 21 of the rules of community supervision; participate in the drug patch program in violation of Rule 22 of the rules of community supervision; successfully complete a drug awareness class in violation of Rule 24 of the rules of community supervision; and abide by curfew requirements in violation of Rule 29 of the rules of community supervision. At a hearing on the State’s motion, the State abandoned allegations of tampering with evidence and possession of a controlled substance. Appellant pled “true” to all remaining allegations except one, which alleged she tested positive for cocaine, methamphetamines, and amphetamines on December 21, 2023, in violation of Rule 4 of the rules of community supervision. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, and having considered the evidence presented, the trial court found every live allegation in the State’s motion to be “true,” adjudicated Appellant guilty, and imposed a sentence of twenty-three months imprisonment in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We affirm. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this court, supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously 2 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 copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of her right to (1) object to counsel’s motion, (2) review the record, (3) file a pro se response to counsel’s 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 did not file a response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the brief and the record, and we conclude that this appeal is without merit. In a 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 revocation decision under an abuse of discretion standard, see Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 3 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 ruling. Hacker, 389 S.W.3d at 865; Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Here, Appellant pled “true” to all but one of the violations alleged, 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 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 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). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. W. BRUCE WILLIAMS JUSTICE July 30, 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