Antonio Lopez v. the State of Texas

2026-08-20

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's revocation of community supervision. Counsel's motion to withdraw was granted.

Antonio Lopez pleaded guilty to robbery and received a suspended ten-year prison sentence with ten years of community supervision. The State later filed a motion to revoke his community supervision, initially alleging eighteen violations. At the revocation hearing, the State abandoned seven violations, and the trial court found seven of the remaining eleven allegations to be proven. The court revoked Lopez's supervision and imposed the original ten-year confinement sentence.

On appeal, Lopez's court-appointed counsel filed an Anders motion to withdraw, concluding that no arguable issues existed for appeal. Counsel properly complied with all procedural requirements by providing Lopez copies of relevant documents and advising him of his rights. After independently reviewing the record, the appellate court agreed that the appeal lacked merit, noting that proof of even a single violation is sufficient to support revocation.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether sufficient evidence supported the trial court's finding of violations justifying community supervision revocation
Whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in revoking supervision
Whether counsel properly complied with Anders procedures

Procedural posture

The case was appealed to the Eleventh Court of Appeals from the 42nd District Court in Taylor County, Texas, following the revocation of Lopez's community supervision.

Authorities cited

472 S.W.3d 322

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Opinion filed August 20, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

No. 11-26-00013-CR

ANTONIO LOPEZ, Appellant

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 42nd District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 30997-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Antonio Lopez, originally pleaded guilty to robbery. See TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.02 (West 2019). In that regard, Appellant executed a written judicial confession whereby he stipulated that he was the person charged in the indictment and that he committed the offense as charged therein. Pursuant to the terms of a negotiated plea agreement between Appellant and the State, the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement for ten years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a fine of $1,000.

However, the trial court suspended the imposition of the confinement portion of the sentence and placed Appellant on community supervision for ten years.

The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community

supervision. Specifically, the State alleged eighteen violations. At the outset of the hearing on the State’s motion, the State abandoned seven of the alleged violations. Appellant pleaded “not true” to the remaining eleven violations. Upon the conclusion of the contested hearing, the trial court found seven of the remaining allegations to be “true,” revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and sentenced him to confinement for ten years in the Institutional Division of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice.

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. In

addressing an Anders brief, a court of appeals may only determine whether: (1) the appeal is wholly frivolous and, if so, issue an opinion explaining that it has

independently reviewed the record and finds no reversible error; or (2) arguable grounds for appeal exist and, if so, remand the cause to the trial court to appoint new appellate counsel to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

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). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record and likewise conclude that the appeal is without merit.1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY

CHIEF JUSTICE

August 20, 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

of Criminal Appeals pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.