Background
Randy Lee Bolling pleaded guilty to burglary of a building, a state jail felony, and engaging in organized criminal activity, a third-degree felony. Under negotiated plea agreements, the trial court placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for five years in both cases.
The State later moved to adjudicate Bolling’s guilt, alleging violations that included failure to enroll in a theft-intervention program, failure to complete community-service hours or pay supervision fees, and commission of three additional burglaries. At a combined hearing, Bolling ultimately pleaded true to all allegations and testified that they were true. The trial court adjudicated him guilty and imposed two years’ confinement for burglary of a building and eight years’ confinement for engaging in organized criminal activity.
The Court’s Holding
Court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, concluding that the record presented no meritorious or arguable appellate grounds. Bolling responded only that he remained in the county jail and wanted to be transferred to begin serving his sentences in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
After independently reviewing the records, the Eleventh Court of Appeals agreed that the appeals were without merit. Bolling’s pleas of true and testimony admitting the violations sufficiently supported the trial court’s findings, and proof of even one community-supervision violation would have supported revocation. The court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed the trial court’s judgments.
Key Takeaways
- The State must prove a community-supervision violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
- A single proven violation is sufficient to support revocation and adjudication of guilt.
- Bolling’s pleas of true and admissions established the alleged violations, leaving no arguable ground for appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the substantial effect of a defendant’s plea of true in a deferred-adjudication revocation proceeding. Once a violation is established, appellate review is deferential, and the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling.
It also shows the Anders procedure in operation: appellate counsel may withdraw only after identifying no arguable issues and satisfying required notice obligations, while the appellate court must independently review the record before affirming.