Opinion filed July 10, 2026
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
No. 11-25-00031-CR
NATIVIDAD GUTIERREZ RODRIGUEZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 161st District Court
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. B-23-0320-CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Natividad Gutierrez Rodriguez, pleaded guilty to continuous
violence against the family, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 25.11(a), (e) (West Supp. 2025). Pursuant to the terms of a negotiated plea agreement between Appellant and the State, the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for ten years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), but suspended imposition of the sentence and placed Appellant on community supervision for a period of ten years. The State subsequently moved to revoke Appellant’s community supervision, alleging that he violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. At the hearing on the State’s motion to revoke, the State abandoned one of the allegations and
Appellant pleaded “true” to the remaining violations alleged. The trial court found the violations to be “true,” revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and
assessed his punishment at imprisonment for eight years in TDCJ.
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. 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 a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to object to counsel’s motion to withdraw, to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief, and to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5, 68. As such, courtappointed 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 at 409–12; 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 likewise conclude that the appeal is without merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 & n.6 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005). Appellant pleaded “true” to both allegations, 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
2
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 independent review of the record, we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist.1
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE
July 10, 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 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