Isaac Levi Bill v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed June 5, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-24-00110-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. CR26089

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Isaac Levi Bill, pled guilty in 2019 to the second-degree felony
offense of possession of a controlled substance, tetrahydrocannabinol, in an amount
of four grams or more but less than 400 grams. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE
ANN. §§ 481.103(a)(1), .116(d) (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.
Appellant was subsequently indicted in cause number CR27711 for
committing the second-degree felony offense of sexual assault of a child on April 20,
2020. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.011(a)(2) (West Supp. 2024). In June 2023,
Appellant pled guilty to sexual assault and was placed on another ten-year period of
deferred adjudication community supervision for that offense. See PENAL
§ 22.011(a)(1). 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. The trial court, after finding
several allegations in each motion to be “true,” adjudicated Appellant guilty of
possession of a controlled substance in cause number CR26089 and sexual assault
in cause number CR27711.1 The trial court revoked Appellant’s community
supervision and assessed his punishment for the second-degree felony drug
possession at imprisonment for five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, to run concurrently with his twenty-year prison
sentence imposed in cause number CR27711 for sexual assault.
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

Appellant appeals his conviction for sexual assault, which we affirm this same date in our cause
1

number 11-24-00111-CR.

2
(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
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

3
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
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