Oscar Reveles Carrete v. the State of Texas

Opinion

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00327-CR

OSCAR REVELES CARRETE, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 13th District Court Navarro County, Texas

Trial Court No. D41466-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In an open plea to the court, Oscar Reveles Carrete pled guilty to the offense of Tampering With or Fabricating Physical Evidence. The trial court deferred an adjudication of guilt and placed Carrete on community supervision for 10 years. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Carrete’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.

1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Carrete is granted.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Affirmed; motion granted Opinion delivered and filed June 20, 2024 Do not publish [CR25] Carrete v. State Page 2