In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-25-00202-CR
MISTY RENEA PRICE, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 69th District Court
Dallam County, Texas
Trial Court No. 4958, Honorable Kimberly Allen, Presiding
July 21, 2026
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before DOSS and YARBROUGH and PRATT, JJ.
Appellant, Misty Renea Price, appeals from the trial court’s order revoking her
community supervision and imposing the previously suspended five-year sentence for the
offense of assault family violence, enhanced by a prior conviction, a third-degree felony.1
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion to
1 See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.01(b)(2)(A).
withdraw. Because our independent review confirms that no arguable ground for appeal
exists, we grant counsel’s motion and affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 2023, Appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of assault family violence,
enhanced by a prior conviction, and was placed on community supervision for five years.
The State later filed several motions to revoke. Its third amended motion alleged ten
violations of the conditions of supervision: (a) using methamphetamine; (b) using
marijuana; (c) failing to report to the community supervision department for twenty-two
months; (d) failing to make court-ordered payments for twenty-two months; (e) failing to
complete seven hours of community service; (f) failing to attend and complete the drug
offender education program; (g) failing to attend and complete rational behavioral therapy;
(h) committing the offense of possession of methamphetamine; (i) being arrested for
possession of methamphetamine; and (j) committing the offense of failure to appear.
Appellant pleaded “true” to allegations (a) through (d), and “not true” to the
remaining allegations. At the close of the hearing, the trial court found allegations (a),
(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (i), and (j) true, and found allegations (g) and (h) not true. The court
revoked Appellant’s community supervision and sentenced her to five years of
confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 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
2
in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,
744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). 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 can be predicated. He provided Appellant
with a copy of the Anders brief, the motion to withdraw, and the appellate record, and he
notified her of her rights to file a pro se response and a pro se petition for discretionary
review. Appellant filed a pro se response.
We have carefully reviewed counsel’s Anders brief and Appellant’s pro se
response. Our independent review 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). Appellant’s pleas of “true” to
allegations (a) through (d), standing alone, support the trial court’s revocation order. Id.
Appellant raises three concerns, none of which supplies an arguable ground for
reversal. Two of them rest on matters outside the appellate record: that a conflict of
interest existed because counsel’s private investigator is friends with the district attorney,
3
and that the district attorney represented her husband in 2015. Claims requiring
development of facts outside the record are not proper for direct appeal. See Menefield
v. State, 363 S.W.3d 591, 592–93 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
Appellant’s remaining concern is that she was denied the ability to represent
herself. Invocation of the right of self-representation must be clear and unequivocal.
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1975); OsorioLopez v. State, 663 S.W.3d 750, 756 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022). At a pretrial hearing,
Appellant referred in passing to the possibility of self-representation while simultaneously
discussing her desire to obtain new counsel. She then told the trial court that she would
be able to hire new counsel, and the trial court granted her a continuance for that purpose.
The record reflects no clear or unequivocal invocation of the right to self-representation,
and no such request appears in any later proceeding.
CONCLUSION
Finding no arguable ground for appellate review, we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.2
Lawrence M. Doss
Justice
Do not publish.
2 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the
opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is informational and ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and continues after this Court grants counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.
4