Brian Idell Tennison v. The State of Texas Appeal from 220th District Court of Comanche County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed January 26, 2017 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________ No. 11-16-00162-CR ___________ BRIAN IDELL TENNISON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 220th District Court Comanche County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CCCR-07-03009 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Brian Idell Tennison, originally pleaded guilty to the third-degree felony offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court convicted Appellant, assessed his punishment, and placed him on community supervision for five years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision. At the revocation hearing, Appellant pleaded true to four of the five allegations contained in the State’s motion to revoke. The trial court found the four allegations to be true, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and imposed the original punishment of confinement for five years and a $1,000 fine. 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 no arguable issues exist in this appeal. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, a copy of the reporter’s record, and a copy of the clerk’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Appellant has not filed a pro se response.1 Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); 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. [Panel Op.] 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. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. We note that proof of one violation of the terms and conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support revocation. Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). In this regard, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 This court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s 1 brief. 2 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Furthermore, absent a void judgment, issues relating to an original plea proceeding may not be raised in a subsequent appeal from the revocation of community supervision. Jordan v. State, 54 S.W.3d 783, 785–86 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Traylor v. State, 561 S.W.2d 492, 494 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Based upon our review of the record, we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 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 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 January 26, 2017 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.
