Noe Olmos v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
• Decided: June 11, 2026
• Docket: 02-25-00412-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-25-00412-CR ___________________________

NOE OLMOS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 396th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1844776

Before Kerr, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr MEMORANDUM OPINION

The State indicted Appellant Noe Olmos for the second-degree felony of

sexual assault of a child. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.011(a)(2)(C), (c)(1), (f). As part of a

plea bargain, Olmos pleaded guilty, and the trial court placed him on

deferred-adjudication community supervision for seven years. About two months

later, the State filed a petition to proceed to adjudication. For that proceeding, Olmos

pleaded true to the allegation in the State’s petition without a punishment agreement.

After hearing evidence from both the State and the defense, the trial court found

Olmos guilty and sentenced him to seven years’ confinement. See id.

§ 12.33 (providing imprisonment range of two to twenty years for second-degree

felony). Olmos timely appealed, and the trial court promptly appointed appellate

counsel to represent him.

Olmos’s counsel—after determining that Olmos’s appeal was frivolous—filed a

motion to withdraw and, in support of that motion, a brief. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s motion and brief meet

the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at

1400. Additionally, in compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel provided Olmos with

copies of the brief and the motion to withdraw and informed him of his right to file a

pro se response, to review the record, and to seek discretionary review pro se should

this court declare his appeal frivolous. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App.

2 2014). Counsel also provided Olmos with a form motion for pro se access to the

appellate record. See id. at 319–20. Although given an opportunity to file a pro se

response to the Anders brief, Olmos has not filed one. The State, for its part, filed a

letter in which it agreed that Olmos had no meritorious grounds on which to advance

an appeal.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and have determined

that Olmos’s appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Nothing in the record

arguably supports the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We

thus grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: June 11, 2026