Full Opinion

Opinion filed August 13, 2026 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-26-00026-CR __________ ELIZABETH ANNE ALLEN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 42nd District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 31250A MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Elizabeth Anne Allen, pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance in an amount of one gram or more but less than four grams, a third-degree felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(c) (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 on April 17, 2025, for a period of six years. The State moved to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt four months later. The State alleged that Appellant: (1) committed the offense of possession of a controlled substance on or about May 28, 2025, in violation of Condition A of the Terms and Conditions of Community Supervision; (2) admitted to using marihuana in violation of Condition B of the Terms and Conditions of Community Supervision; (3) failed to report in May, June, and July 2025 in violation of Condition D of the Terms and Conditions of Community Supervision; (4) left her designated counties without written consent in violation of Condition G of the Terms and Conditions of Community Supervision; (5) possessed marihuana in violation of Condition I of the Terms and Conditions of Community Supervision; and (6)–(8) failed to pay court costs and various fees in violation of Condition N of the Terms and Conditions of Community Supervision. At a hearing on the State’s motion, the State waived the first allegation, and Appellant pled “true” to the remaining allegations. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, and having considered the evidence presented, the trial court found every remaining allegation in the State’s motion to be “true,” adjudicated Appellant guilty, and sentenced Appellant to ten years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice but suspended the imposition of that sentence and placed Appellant on community supervision for ten years. 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 copy of the appellate record. Counsel also advised Appellant of her right to object to counsel’s motion, review the record, file 2 a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief, and 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. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Here, Appellant pled “true” to seven allegations in the State’s motion, which the trial court accepted and found to be “true.” Further, the evidence presented at the hearing is sufficient to support each finding of “true” made by the trial court. See Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 764 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Proof of only a single violation of the terms and conditions of a probationer’s community supervision is sufficient to adjudicate Appellant guilty. 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). Moreover, and in this regard, a plea of “true,” without more, is sufficient to support the trial court’s decision. See Garcia, 387 S.W.3d at 26; Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Accordingly, we agree with counsel that no meritorious or arguable grounds for appeal exist.1 See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court 1 of Criminal Appeals pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. 3 (“[C]ourts of appeals must decide whether the Anders appeal and subsequent pro se brief raise any meritorious ‘arguable grounds’ for review.”). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 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. 4