Full Opinion

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and FILED: May 28, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed; Motion granted Do Not Publish CR25 Oscar Vera Olvera v. The State of Texas Page 3