Matthew Allen Morrell v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed May 30, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-24-00105-CR
__________

MATTHEW ALLEN MORRELL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 350th District Court
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 15890-D

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Matthew Allen Morrell, pled guilty in July 2023 to the third-degree
felony offense of assault against a person with whom he had a dating relationship,
having been previously convicted of an offense involving family violence. See TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(b)(2)(A) (West Supp. 2024). Pursuant to the terms of a
negotiated plea agreement between Appellant and the State, the trial court found
Appellant guilty of the charged offense and assessed his punishment at
imprisonment for five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice; however, the trial court suspended the imposition of Appellant’s
sentence and placed him on community supervision for five years. The State
subsequently filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision, then
amended it and alleged that Appellant failed to report as required, traveled outside
the counties of supervision without permission, failed to notify his supervision
officer of changes in his contact information within 48 hours, and failed to pay
various fees and costs.
The trial court held a hearing on the State’s amended motion to revoke on
March 21, 2024, during which Appellant pled “true” to the allegations in the
amended motion. The trial court accepted Appellant’s pleas of “true” and adjourned
to allow the parties to present punishment evidence at a subsequent sentencing
hearing. At the sentencing hearing, the State presented the testimony of three
witnesses, including the victim of the underlying assaultive offense; Appellant
presented one witness. Upon the conclusion of this hearing, the trial court found the
allegations in the amended motion to be “true,” revoked Appellant’s community
supervision, and imposed the originally assessed five-year sentence.
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,

2
an explanatory letter, and a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. Counsel
also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to
counsel’s brief, and of his 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).
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). Here, Appellant pled “true” to the violations alleged in the State’s amended
motion to revoke, which the trial court accepted and found to be “true.” We note
that proof of one violation of the terms and conditions of a probationer’s community
supervision, without more, 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 pleas
of “true,” standing alone, are sufficient to support the trial court’s decision to revoke
Appellant’s community supervision and its revocation order. 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

We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of
1

Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

3
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

W. STACY TROTTER
JUSTICE

May 30, 2025
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

4