Affirm and Opinion Filed May 23, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05
- 21
- 00089
- CR AVELINO GREGORIO MARCOS , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F
- 0923557
- Y MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Nowell, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Molberg Avelino Gregorio Marcos, appellant, appeals the revocation of his community supervision. Court

- appointed appellate counsel, Juanita Bravo Edgecomb , filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel, asserting that there are no non

frivolous issues that appellant could raise on appeal. We h ave reviewed the record and agree. We grant counsel ’ s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment below. Appellant Avelino Marcos was indicted for the offense of burglary of a habitation in 2009. Appellant waived his right to a jury trial and pleaded guilt y pursuant to a plea

- bargain agreement with the State. The trial court accepted the– 2

–

agreement and sentenced appellant to ten years’ confinement, probated for eight
years. The State filed a n amended motion to revoke appellant’s probation on May 1,
2020

. The State alleged appellant violated five conditions of supervision: that he failed to report to the probation office from August 2009 through February 2017 (condition (d)) ; failed to pay probation fees and was delinquent $1 , 820 (condition (j)) ; did not p ay the Crime Stoppers payment and was delinquent $50 (condition (k)) ; did not complete the required community service hours (condition (l)) ; and did not pay $6 , 300 in restitution as ordered (condition (p))

. On January 21, 2021, the trial
court held a hea ring. Appellant pleaded not true to the allegations

. After hearing testimony from a probation officer and appellant, t he trial court found that appellant “did violate conditions J, K, L, and P, and [found] those allegations true.” The court sentenced appellant to two years’ confinement.
If court

- appointed appellate counsel files an Anders brief asserting that no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must independently examine the record to determine whether the appeal is “ wholly frivolous .” Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744

– 45 (1967). “An appeal is ‘wholly frivolous’ or ‘without merit’ when it ‘lacks any basis in law or fact.’” Crowe v. State , 595 S.W.3d 317, 319 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2020, no pet.) (quoting McCoy v. Court o f Appeals , 486 U.S. 429, 438 n.10 (1988)). Arguments are frivolous if they cannot conceivably persuade the court. Id

.– 3

–

Counsel states in her Anders brief that she conducted a thorough review of the record in this case and concluded the “appeal is withou t merit and wholly frivolous in that the record reflects no reversible error

. ” In her motion to withdraw , counsel confirmed that she mailed a letter to appellant in which she notified him of his right to file a pro se response and his right to review the record in preparation for filing the response. Counsel stated she forwarded copies of the reporter’s records and the clerk’s record to appellant. This Court also sent appellant a letter informing him that counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to wit hdraw. Copies of the brief and motion were included with the letter. This Court informed appellant that he had a right to review the appellate record himself, to file a pro se response, and to seek discretionary review should the Court find his appeal fr ivolous. Appellant did not file a response. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that appellant’s appeal “lacks any basis in law or fact” and is therefore frivolous. See Crowe , 595 S.W.3d at 319. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withd raw, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

210089f.u05 D O N OT P UBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47 /Ken Molberg/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE– 4

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT
AVELINO GREGORIO MARCOS, Appellant
No. 05

- 21

- 00089

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F

- 0923557

- Y. Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg. Justices Nowell and Goldstein participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered this 23 rd day of May , 2022

.