Isaac Elio Flores v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 132nd District Court of Scurry County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed December 13, 2013 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-13-00175-CR __________ ISAAC ELIO FLORES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 132nd District Court Scurry County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 9929 MEMORANDUM OPINION Isaac Elio Flores pleaded guilty in September 2012 to theft. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt, placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for a term of five years, and assessed a fine of $1,500. In October 2012, the State filed a motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt, alleging multiple violations of the terms and conditions of community supervision. The trial court heard the motion to proceed on February 28, 2013. Appellant pleaded true to one of the alleged violations. Upon receiving evidence, the trial court found all of the alleged violations to be true and adjudicated Appellant guilty of the charged offense. The trial court subsequently assessed his punishment at confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of two years. 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 his 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 and proceed with an adjudication of guilt. See Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of 1 By letter, this court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel s brief. 2 Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 ( In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68. ). Likewise, this court advises Appellant that he 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. PER CURIAM December 13, 2013 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J. 3
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.
