Oscar Vera Olvera v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00385-CR

Oscar Vera Olvera,
Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,
Appellee

On appeal from the
82nd District Court of Falls County, Texas
Judge Bryan F. Russ Jr., presiding
Trial Court Cause No. 10707

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a contested hearing on the State’s motion to adjudicate, the

trial court adjudicated Oscar Vera Olvera guilty of the offense of possession of

a controlled substance in an amount of less than one gram, revoked his

community supervision, and sentenced him to twenty-four months in state jail.

Olvera filed a notice of appeal from the judgment adjudicating his guilt.
Appellate counsel has now filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders

brief in support of the motion asserting that the appeal presents no issues of

arguable merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel’s brief

demonstrates a professional evaluation of the record for error and he has

demonstrated compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. See id.

at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]

1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014);

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407-09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Olvera did

not file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief.

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must conduct a full examination of

the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Anders,

386 U.S. at 744; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). Arguments are

frivolous when they “cannot conceivably persuade the court.” McCoy v. Ct. of

Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel's

brief, and we find that the appeal is frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Despite finding no reversible error, appointed counsel has identified

nonreversible error in the judgment, which incorrectly reflects that Olvera pled

“true” to the allegations in the State’s motion. As requested, we modify the

Oscar Vera Olvera v. The State of Texas Page 2
judgment adjudicating guilt under the heading “Plea to Motion to Adjudicate”

to reflect Olvera’s pleas of “Not True.”

Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Olvera is granted.

STEVE SMITH
Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: May 28, 2026
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Affirmed; Motion granted
Do Not Publish
CR25

Oscar Vera Olvera v. The State of Texas Page 3