Opinion filed August 29, 2025

In The Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________ No. 11-24-00253-CR ___________ ISAIAH ELIAS LARA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 358th District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D-20-1474-CR MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Isaiah Elias Lara, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2) (West Supp. 2024). On December 7, 2022, 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. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt, then amended it, alleging that Appellant committed three new offenses in violation of his community supervision conditions. On September 10, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the State’s amended motion, during which Appellant pleaded “not true” to all allegations. The State called three witnesses, then Appellant’s mother testified. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found all violation allegations to be “true,” adjudicated Appellant guilty, revoked his community supervision, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for twenty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a supporting brief in which he assures this court that, after conducting a professional evaluation of the record and applicable law, 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). Counsel further certifies that he 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; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409–12.

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.1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 & n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

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

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY CHIEF 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.