MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Travis Bryan Hicks, pleaded guilty to the first-degree felony offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021 (West 2019). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt, placed Appellant on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a fine of $6,000. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt. The trial court held a contested hearing on the State’s motion to adjudicate, found the State’s allegations to be true, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and adjudicated Appellant guilty of the charged offense. The trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for sixty years. We affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, and an explanatory letter. Counsel advised Appellant that he had a right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel provided Appellant with a motion for obtaining the records and with contact information for the district clerk, the court reporter, and this court. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review in order to seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. 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).

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. The State presented evidence in support of the allegations in the motion to adjudicate. We note that proof of one violation of the terms and conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support revocation. Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Further, absent a void judgment, issues relating to an original plea proceeding may not be raised in a subsequent appeal from the revocation of community supervision and adjudication of guilt. Jordan v. State, 54 S.W.3d 783, 785–86 (Tex. Crim. App.

2001); Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661–62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Based on our review of the record, we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. ^[1] We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

PER CURIAM

June 28, 2019 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.^[2]

Willson, J., not participating.