Isaac Levi Bill v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed June 5, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-24-00111-CR
__________

ISAAC LEVI BILL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 35th District Court
Brown County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CR27711

MEMORANDUM OPINION
While on deferred adjudication community supervision for possession of a
controlled substance,1 Appellant, Isaac Levi Bill, pled guilty to sexual assault, a

1
In 2019, under trial court cause number CR26089, Appellant pled guilty to possession of
tetrahydrocannabinol in an amount of four grams or more but less than 400 grams, a second-degree felony,
and was placed on ten years’ deferred adjudication community supervision. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY
second-degree felony. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.011(a)(1) (West Supp. 2024).
Pursuant to the terms of a negotiated plea agreement between Appellant and the
State, the trial court deferred finding Appellant guilty and placed him on deferred
adjudication community supervision for a period of ten years.
Following Appellant’s arrest in November 2023 by the Stephenville Police
Department for committing several new offenses, the State filed a motion in each
case to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt and revoke his community supervision. On
April 29, 2024, the trial court held a consolidated hearing on the State’s motions,
during which Appellant pled “not true” to all allegations. The State called ten
witnesses, then Appellant and his mother testified. Upon the conclusion of the
hearing, the trial court found that Appellant violated eight conditions of his
community supervision for sexual assault, adjudicated him guilty, and revoked his
community supervision. The trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at
imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice for twenty years, to run concurrently with his five-year prison sentence
imposed in cause number CR26089.
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 his right to review the record and file a response to

CODE ANN. §§ 481.103(a)(1), .116(d) (West Supp. 2024). He appeals his final conviction for that offense,
which we affirm in our cause number 11-24-00110-CR.

2
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). 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). Despite
Appellant’s pleas of “not true” to all allegations, he admitted during his testimony
that he violated several conditions of his community supervision—which the trial
court found to be “true”—including that he: (1) failed to report to his probation
officer for nearly two years; (2) did not work any community service hours; (3) failed
to complete the drug offender education program; (4) left the county of supervision
without permission on several occasions; and (5) committed new offenses such as
criminal trespass and driving without a valid license. In this regard, Appellant’s
testimony, standing alone, was sufficient to support the trial court’s revocation
orders. 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

3
on our independent review of the record, we agree with counsel that no arguable
grounds for appeal exist. 2
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
JUSTICE

June 5, 2025
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of
2

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

4