Ramiro Velazquez Banuelos v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed August 29, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

Nos. 11-24-00303-CR & 11-24-00304-CR
__________

RAMIRO VELAZQUEZ BANUELOS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 106th District Court
Dawson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 23-9191 & 23-9153

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Ramiro Velazquez Banuelos, was charged by separate indictments
with the state-jail-felony offenses of burglary of a building,1 and possession of
cocaine, a controlled substance in penalty group one, in an amount of less than one

1
Appellate cause number 11-24-00303-CR, trial court cause number 23-9191.
gram.2 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(c)(1) (West Supp. 2024); TEX. HEALTH &
SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(b) (West Supp. 2024). On November 29, 2023,
pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement between Appellant and the State, the trial
court placed Appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for
concurrent terms of three years for the burglary-of-a-building offense, and four years
for the possession-of-cocaine offense.
The State subsequently moved to adjudicate Appellant guilty of both offenses
based on several allegations that Appellant violated certain conditions of his
community supervision. During the hearing on the State’s motions, Appellant’s
community supervision officer testified that Appellant: (1) was arrested on
February 10, 2024 for possession of a controlled substance; (2) failed to report to his
community supervision officer in December 2023, and January, February, and
March 2024; (3) was delinquent on his fees; (4) failed to submit to required drug
testing; (5) failed to attend his required drug awareness class; and (6) completed
none of his mandatory community service hours. Appellant admitted that he failed
to report or complete any community service hours as alleged, and “know[s] [he]
did . . . wrong, but [he] was just scared.” He testified that he was “in the wrong place
at the wrong time” when he was arrested in February 2024: “I mean, if I got to pay
for it, . . . I mean, whatever.” At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found
all violations alleged in the State’s motions to be “true,” adjudicated Appellant guilty
of both offenses, and assessed his punishment for each conviction at confinement
for two years in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
to be served concurrently.

2
Appellate cause number 11-24-00304-CR, trial court cause number 23-9153.

2
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed motions to withdraw in this
court. The motions filed in each cause are supported by briefs 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). For each case, counsel has provided Appellant with copies of the
briefs, copies of the motions 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. 738; 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 briefs.
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, 334 (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 testimony, standing alone, was sufficient to support the trial court’s
revocation decisions and judgments. 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

3
Op.] 1979). Therefore, based on our independent review of the record, we agree
with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist.3
However, we note that the judgments contain a nonreversible error in the
assessment of court costs. Pursuant to Article 102.073(a) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, court costs may only be assessed once against a defendant who
is convicted of multiple offenses in a single criminal action. TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. ANN. art. 102.073(a) (West 2018). Here, Appellant was convicted of two
separate offenses in a single criminal action, yet each judgment orders him to pay
court costs of $290. Consequently, court costs were erroneously assessed in one of
these causes. See id.
We have the authority to modify the trial court’s judgment to make it speak the
truth when we have the necessary information to do so. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b);
Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Court costs are
determined by “using the highest category of offense that is possible based on the
defendant’s convictions.” CRIM. PROC. art. 102.073(b). But when the convictions
are for the same category of offense and the court costs are the same, the costs should
be assessed in the case with the lowest trial court cause number. See, e.g.,
Arambula v. State, No. 02-24-00420-CR, 2025 WL 2423518, at *2 (Tex. App.—
Fort Worth Aug. 21, 2025, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication);
Esquivel-Mesen v. State, No. 05-22-00844-CR, 2025 WL 1507708, at *1–2 (Tex.
App.—Dallas May 27, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). As
such, we modify the judgment in trial court cause number 23-9191, appellate cause
number 11-24-00303-CR, to delete the $290 court costs assessment.

3
Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure.

4
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motions to withdraw, we affirm the judgment
of the trial court in cause number 23-9153, and we affirm the judgment of the trial
court in cause number 23-9191 as modified.

W. STACY TROTTER
JUSTICE

August 29, 2025
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

5