Background
Frank Ross Greenwood pleaded guilty to online solicitation of a minor, a second-degree felony. Under a negotiated plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication, placed him on community supervision for ten years, and imposed a $2,000 fine.
The State later moved to adjudicate Greenwood’s guilt, alleging eleven violations of his community-supervision conditions. Greenwood pleaded not true to each allegation, but after a contested hearing, the trial court found all eleven true, adjudicated him guilty, revoked community supervision, and sentenced him to eight years in prison.
The Court’s Holding
Greenwood’s appointed appellate counsel moved to withdraw and filed an Anders brief concluding that the record presented no arguable grounds for appeal. Counsel supplied Greenwood with the required materials and advised him of his rights to respond, review the record, and seek discretionary review. Greenwood did not file a pro se response.
After independently reviewing the record under Anders, the Eleventh Court of Appeals agreed that the appeal lacked merit. The court noted that proof of one community-supervision violation is sufficient to support revocation. It granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court reviewing an Anders brief must independently examine the record for arguable grounds for appeal.
- Proof of a single violation of community-supervision conditions is sufficient to sustain revocation.
- The court affirmed Greenwood’s adjudication and eight-year prison sentence after finding no arguable appellate issue.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the limited appellate prospects for challenging revocation when the record supports at least one alleged violation. It also shows the procedural safeguards required before appointed counsel may withdraw under Anders.
The memorandum opinion was designated “do not publish” under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.2(b).