Harvey Lee Davis IV v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-25-00548-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

HARVEY LEE DAVIS IV, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 12TH DISTRICT COURT
OF WALKER COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Cron, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

Appellant Harvey Lee Davis IV pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of four

grams or more but less than 200 grams of fentanyl, a second-degree felony. 1 See TEX.

1 This case is before this Court on transfer from the Tenth Court of Appeals in Waco pursuant to a

docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 73.001.
HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.115(d). The trial court placed him on deferred adjudication

community supervision for eight years. The State filed a second amended motion to

adjudicate guilt on August 8, 2025, alleging that appellant violated the terms and

conditions of his community supervision. Appellant entered pleas of not true to all

allegations raised in the State’s motion to adjudicate guilt. After conducting a hearing, the

trial court found the allegations in the State’s motion “true,” revoked appellant’s

community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to ten years in the

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant’s court-

appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds

for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel

filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that her review of the record

yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal could be predicated. See id.

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas,

an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds

none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set

out pertinent legal authorities.” (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex.

App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.))); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510

n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

2
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),

appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no

reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Appellant’s counsel also informed this Court

in writing that she: (1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a

motion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed

appellant of his rights to file a pro se response, to review the record prior to filing that

response, and to seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous;

and (4) provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record

that only requires appellant’s signature and date with instructions to file the motion within

ten days. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20; see also In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09. In this case, appellant neither filed a timely motion

seeking pro se access to the appellate record nor a motion for extension of time to do so.

Appellant did not file a pro se response in the case.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the

proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we have found

nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,

827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the

opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for

reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule

3
of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, appellant’s counsel has asked this Court for

permission to withdraw as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five

days from the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion

and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise him of his right to file a petition for

discretionary review. 2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at

411 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

IV. MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT

An appellate court has the power to correct and reform the judgment of the trial

court to make the record speak the truth when it has the necessary data and information

to do so, or make any appropriate order as the law and the nature of the case may require.

Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); see TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b)

(permitting the intermediate courts of appeals to “modify the trial court’s judgment and

affirm it as modified”). The judgment of conviction incorrectly states that appellant pled

“true” to the motion to adjudicate. We modify the judgment to reflect, “Plea to Motion to

Adjudicate: NOT TRUE.” See Bigley, 865 S.W.2d at 27–28; Herrera v. State, No. 13-21-

2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case

by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary
review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed
within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion
for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3.
Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.
4
00325-CR, 2022 WL 3654751, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Aug. 25, 2022,

no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

V. CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

CLARISSA SILVA
Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the
29th day of January, 2026.

5