Oscar Reveles Carrete v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-23-00368-CR
OSCAR REVELES CARRETE,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 13th District Court
Navarro County, Texas
Trial Court No. D39513-CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In an open plea to the court, Oscar Reveles Carrete pled true to 12 violations
alleged by the State in its motion to adjudicate a prior deferred adjudication community
supervision for the offense of Manufacture/Delivery of a Controlled Substance, Penalty
Group One, one gram or more but less than four grams. The trial court adjudicated
Carrete guilty and sentenced him to 11 years in prison. 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
Carrete v. State Page 2
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Do not publish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 3