Laura Ann Marroquin v. the State of Texas, 07-21-00028-CR

Laura Ann Marroquin pleaded guilty in 2015 to abandoning or endangering a child and received two years confinement suspended for two years community supervision and a $2,000 fine.
The State later sought revocation of community supervision after numerous alleged violations (third amended motion alleged 147 violations from 2017–2019, including new offenses, drug use, leaving the county, failure to report, and failure to pay fees).
At the 2020 revocation hearing Marroquin pleaded not true to all allegations; the State presented witnesses and records, and Marroquin testified and admitted to several violations (e.g., concealing methamphetamine, possessing paraphernalia, out-of-county travel, curfew breaches).
The trial court found some—but not all—allegations proven, revoked community supervision, sentenced Marroquin to the original two-year term, and entered judgment for unpaid fines.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding no nonfrivolous issues; the court of appeals independently reviewed the record, invited a pro se response (none filed), and considered whether counsel complied with Anders/In re Schulman requirements.
The court affirmed the revocation and conviction and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking community supervision (sufficiency of evidence)	The State proved at least some violations by a preponderance of the evidence supporting revocation.	Marroquin pleaded not true to all 147 allegations and argued insufficiency as to each ground.	The court found some allegations proven; because any single proven violation supports revocation, revocation was not an abuse of discretion.
Whether the two-year sentence was grossly disproportionate	The State maintained the sentence was within authorized range and appropriate.	Marroquin argued the sentence was grossly disproportionate to the offense and circumstances.	The court rejected a proportionality challenge and found no reversible error.
Whether appellate counsel complied with Anders and may withdraw	Appellate counsel certified a conscientious review, provided the Anders brief, and notified Marroquin of rights.	Marroquin did not file a pro se response.	The court concluded counsel complied with Anders/In re Schulman and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requirements for counsel who seeks to withdraw on appeal when the appeal is frivolous)
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (procedures for Anders brief and court of appeals review in Texas)
Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standard for abuse of discretion in revocation appeals)
Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (preponderance standard in revocation proceedings)
Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (State must prove violation by preponderance of the evidence)
Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (revocation is an abuse only if State fails as to every alleged ground)
Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (proof of any single violation supports revocation)
Leonard v. State, 385 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (trial court discretion to revoke when preponderance supports a violation)
Jones v. State, 589 S.W.2d 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the court’s ruling)
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (appellate review of Anders-style briefs and independent review requirement)