Benny Vela v. The State of Texas Appeal from 106th District Court of Dawson County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed June 13, 2019 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________ No. 11-18-00266-CR ___________ BENNY VELA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 106th District Court Dawson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 17-7720 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Benny Vela, originally pleaded guilty to the state jail felony offense of injury to a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04(a)(3), (f) (West 2019). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed Appellant on community supervision for five years. The State subsequently filed an application to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt. The trial court held a contested hearing on the State’s motion to adjudicate, found the State’s allegations to be true, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and adjudicated Appellant guilty of the charged offense. The trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement for eighteen months in a state jail facility and a fine of $500. We affirm. 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 this appeal is frivolous and without merit. 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 the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review in order to seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Courtappointed 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); 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. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit. The State presented evidence in support of the allegations in its application to adjudicate, and Appellant even admitted that the State’s allegations were all true. 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). 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 and adjudication of guilt. Jordan v. State, 54 S.W.3d 783, 785–86 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661–62 (Tex. Crim. App. 2 1999). Based upon our review of the record, we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1 The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. PER CURIAM June 13, 2019 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.2 Willson, J., not participating. 1 We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 2 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment. 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.
