Crystal Nicole Castro v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed August 7, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-24-00301-CR
__________

CRYSTAL NICOLE CASTRO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 106th District Court
Dawson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 20-8269

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Crystal Nicole Castro, pleaded guilty to possession of less than one
gram of methamphetamine, a state jail felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE
ANN. § 481.115(b) (West Supp. 2024). On July 27, 2022, pursuant to the terms of a
negotiated plea agreement between Appellant and the State, the trial court deferred
finding Appellant guilty and placed her on deferred adjudication community
supervision for a period of four years. The State subsequently moved to adjudicate
Appellant’s guilt based on several allegations that Appellant violated her community
supervision conditions. On October 23, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the
State’s motion. Appellant’s community supervision officer testified that Appellant
admitted to using methamphetamine on August 4, 2022, eight days after she was
placed on community supervision. Appellant also tested positive for
methamphetamine on every drug test until she stopped reporting in January 2023.
Appellant testified and admitted that she absconded after discussing inpatient
treatment with her community supervision officer because she did not want to be
taken into custody. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found eleven
violation allegations to be “true,” adjudicated Appellant guilty, revoked her
community supervision, and assessed her punishment at imprisonment for two years
in the State Jail 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
(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 her right to review the record and file a response to
counsel’s brief, and of her right to file a petition for discretionary review. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 68. As such, court-appointed 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).

2
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 likewise conclude that the appeal is without merit. See Anders, 386
U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 & n.6 (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).
In this regard, Appellant’s testimony, standing alone, was sufficient to support the
trial court’s judgment. See Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App.
2012); Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979).
Therefore, based on our independent review of the record, we agree with counsel
that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE

August 7, 2025
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
1
Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3