In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-25-00272-CR
HENRY CHRISTOPHER ROSALES, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 106th District Court
Lynn County, Texas
Trial Court No. 22-3610, Honorable Reed A. Filley, Presiding
July 21, 2026
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before DOSS and YARBROUGH and PRATT, JJ.
Appellant, Henry Christopher Rosales, appeals from the trial court’s order revoking
his community supervision and imposing a two-year sentence of imprisonment.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders1 brief and a motion to
withdraw. Because our independent review confirms that no arguable ground for appeal
exists, we grant counsel’s motion and affirm.
1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
BACKGROUND
In 2022, Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance in
penalty group 1/1-B.2 The trial court assessed a two-year sentence and a $1,000 fine,
suspended the confinement, and placed Appellant on community supervision.
Nearly two years later, the State moved to revoke, alleging that Appellant had
failed to report to his supervision officer for all but two months of his term and had failed
to initiate or complete his required community service hours.3 Appellant pleaded not true.
At the revocation hearing, the community supervision officer testified that Appellant
had violated each of the alleged conditions. Appellant then testified on his own behalf.
He explained that, after his first two reports, he stopped reporting because he lacked
transportation, had become homeless, faced family problems, and had lost his mother.
He said that he had asked to surrender but was told it was going to be okay, and he asked
the trial court to continue him on supervision because his circumstances had improved.
The trial court found that the State had proved the alleged violations, revoked community
supervision, and imposed the aforementioned sentence. This appeal followed.
ANDERS REVIEW
When appointed appellate counsel, after a conscientious examination of the
record, concludes that an appeal is frivolous, counsel must file a brief identifying anything
in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. 738 at 744.
2 See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.115(b).
3 The State also alleged several violations related to monetary provisions, such as probation fees,
crime victims’ fee, and his fine.
2
Counsel must also serve the client with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw
and inform the client of the right to file a pro se response and a pro se petition for
discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). This
Court, in turn, must independently examine the entire record to determine whether any
nonfrivolous issue exists. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d
300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Appellant’s counsel has certified that, after diligently searching the record, he has
found no reversible error upon which an appeal may be predicated. Counsel provided
Appellant with a copy of the Anders brief, the motion to withdraw, and the appellate
record, and he notified Appellant of his rights to file a pro se response and a pro se petition
for discretionary review. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
By letter, this Court also notified Appellant of his right to file a response. To date, none
has been received.
Our independent review of the record confirms counsel’s assessment that the
appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005). Proof of any single violation of the conditions of community supervision
is sufficient to support revocation. Shirley v. State, No. PD-0239-22, 2023 Tex. Crim.
App. Unpub. LEXIS 369, at *14 (Tex. Crim. App. Aug. 23, 2023). The uncontroverted
testimony that Appellant failed to report for all but two months of his supervision term,
standing alone, supports the trial court’s revocation order.
3
CONCLUSION
Finding no arguable ground for appellate review, we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.4
Lawrence M. Doss
Justice
Do not publish.
4 Within five days from the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this
opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35.
4