Appellant, Donna Zamarron, pleaded guilty to the offense of sexual assault of a child. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court deferred a finding

of guilt and placed Appellant on community supervision for eight years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt. At a hearing on the motion, Appellant pleaded true to all four of the State’s allegations. The trial court found all of the allegations to be true, revoked Appellant’s community *2 supervision, adjudicated her guilty of the charged offense, and assessed her punishment at confinement for twelve years. We dismiss the appeal.

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 the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of the reporter’s record and the clerk’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of her right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. ^[1] 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); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State , 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.).

Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. See Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409. 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). In this regard, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision and proceed with an adjudication of guilt. See Moses v. State , 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). *3 Furthermore, 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 upon our review of the record, we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist.

We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that she may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. T EX . R. A PP . P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises Appellant that she may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM December 14, 2017

Do not publish. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.

[1] This court granted Appellant more than thirty days in which to exercise her right to file a response to counsel’s brief. Appellant has not filed a response.