Edmundo Jr Santillan v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed June 4, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-24-00284-CR
__________

EDMUNDO SANTILLAN JR, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 161st District Court
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. B-23-0057-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Edmundo Santillan Jr, pled guilty to the third-degree felony
offense of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in an amount of
one gram or more but less than four grams. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN.
§ 481.115(c) (West Supp. 2025). Pursuant to the terms of a negotiated plea
agreement between Appellant and the State, the trial court placed Appellant on
deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of four years. Four
months later, the State filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt alleging that he
had violated conditions of his community supervision. At the hearing on the State’s
motion, Appellant pled “true” to the violations alleged. The trial court found him
guilty, revoked his community supervision, and assessed his punishment at
imprisonment for six years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, and a $5,000 fine.
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, 744
(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 form motion for pro se access to the appellate record.
Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to object to counsel’s motion to
withdraw, to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief,
and to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5, 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 all violations alleged, 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 is sufficient to support the
trial court’s revocation order. Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App.
2
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, a plea of “true,” standing alone, is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision
to revoke community supervision. 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.

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
JUSTICE

June 4, 2026
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 in the Texas Court of
1

Criminal Appeals pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.
3