Frank Lee Oliva v. The State of Texas Appeal from 218th Judicial District Court of Atascosa County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-19-00561-CR Frank Lee OLIVA, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 218th Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas Trial Court No. 17-08-0432-CRA Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Delivered and Filed: June 3, 2020 AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED Appellant Frank Oliva challenges the trial court’s judgment revoking his community supervision and adjudicating him guilty. Because we conclude this appeal is frivolous and without merit, we affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Oliva pleaded guilty to the offense of evading arrest. On August 20, 2018, the trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt, placed Oliva on community supervision for a period of two years, and assessed a $1,000.00 fine. On February 19, 2019, the State filed a Motion to Enter Adjudication of Guilt and Revoke Community Supervision. On July 04-19-00561-CR 29, 2019, the trial court revoked Oliva’s community supervision and entered an adjudication of guilt. The trial court assessed punishment at four years’ imprisonment with a $1,000.00 fine. Oliva’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief with this court stating that he conducted a professional evaluation of the record and determined there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on Oliva’s behalf. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). With citations to the record and legal authority, counsel explains why he concluded the appeal is without merit. Counsel states he reviewed the indictment and evidence adduced at trial, as well as the record of the revocation hearing. The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation showing why there is no basis to advance an appeal. Id. at 744–45; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel provided Oliva with copies of counsel’s Anders brief and motion to withdraw and informed Oliva of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Additionally, counsel provided Oliva with a copy of the appellate record. See id; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.) (per curiam); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Thereafter, we set deadlines for Oliva to file any pro se brief. Oliva did not file a pro se brief. After reviewing the record and counsel’s Anders brief, we conclude there is no reversible error and agree this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial -2- 04-19-00561-CR court is affirmed, and appellate counsel’s request to withdraw is granted.1 Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. Irene Rios, Justice Do not publish 1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Oliva wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Oliva must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or Oliva must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the later of: (1) the date of this opinion; or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
