Raven Lynn Shelton v. State of Texas--Appeal from 266th District Court of Erath County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed July 26, 2012 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-12-00106-CR __________ RAVEN LYNN SHELTON, Appellant V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 266th District Court Erath County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR12997 MEMORANDUM OPINION Raven Lynn Shelton pleaded guilty in June 2008 to the offense of theft. In accordance with a plea agreement, the trial court assessed her punishment at confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of two years and a fine of $1,000. However, the trial court suspended the imposition of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for a term of five years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke community supervision, alleging numerous violations of the terms and conditions of appellant s community supervision. The trial court considered the motion at a hearing conducted on March 20, 2012. Appellant entered a plea of true to all of the alleged violations at the outset of the hearing. Appellant also executed a stipulation of evidence wherein she judicially confessed to the alleged violations. After considering evidence pertaining to punishment, the trial court revoked appellant s community supervision and assessed her punishment at confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of two years and a fine of $1,000. We dismiss the appeal. Appellant s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of her right to review the record and file a response to counsel s brief. A response has not been filed.1 Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App. Eastland 2005, no pet.). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. In this regard, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court s decision to revoke community supervision. See Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). This court advises appellant that she may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68. The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. July 26, 2012 PER CURIAM Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Kalenak, J. 1 By letter, this court granted appellant thirty days in which to exercise her right to file a response to counsel s brief. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
