Stevan Edward Tarango v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed July 25, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-23-00246-CR
__________

STEVAN EDWARD TARANGO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 358th District Court
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. D-37,982

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Stevan Edward Tarango, pleaded guilty to the offense of burglary
of a habitation, a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(c)(2)
(West 2019). On March 12, 2015, based on the parties’ negotiated plea agreement,
the trial court deferred finding Appellant guilty, and placed him on deferred
adjudication community supervision for a period of ten years. As conditions of his
community supervision, Appellant was required to follow all state and federal laws,
report to his community supervision officer, and pay a $2,000 fine.
The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt and to
revoke his community supervision, alleging that Appellant violated his community
supervision conditions by using marihuana and cocaine on multiple occasions. On
October 26, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on the State’s motion, during which
Appellant pleaded “true” to the violations alleged. The State nevertheless presented
the testimony of Appellant’s supervision officer to whom Appellant admitted using
“THC and cocaine” in April of 2023. Appellant testified, and explained why he
chose to engage in drug use while on deferred adjudication. Upon the conclusion of
the hearing, the trial court found the allegations to be “true,” adjudicated Appellant
guilty, and assessed his punishment at confinement for twenty years in the
Correctional Institutions 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. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of
the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both
the clerk’s record and the 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 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).

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 we agree that the appeal is without merit. Here, Appellant pleaded
“true” to the violations alleged in the State’s motion, 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.
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 a probationer’s 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.

PER CURIAM
July 25, 2024
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Williams, J., and Wright, S.C.J.2

Trotter, J., not participating.

1
Appellant has the 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