In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-25-00119-CR

GLORIA OLIVIA VENZOR, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 100th District Court Carson County, Texas Trial Court No. 7344, Honorable Dale A. Rabe, Jr., Presiding December 16, 2025 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

On October 22, 2023, Appellant, Gloria Olivia Venzor, entered a guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, a first-degree felony.1 The trial court deferred a finding of guilt, placed her on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of eight years, and assessed a fine. In September of 2024, the State filed a motion to proceed with adjudication of guilt. The State alleged Appellant

Appellant timely appealed from the judgment adjudicating her guilt.

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders2 brief. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the judgment.

In support of her motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that she has conducted a conscientious examination of the record and, in her opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the controlling authorities, the record presents no reversible error. In a letter to Appellant, counsel notified her of the motion to withdraw; provided her with a copy of the motion, Anders brief, and appellate record; and informed her of her right to file a pro se response.

See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief).

By letter, this Court also advised Appellant of her right to file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant has not filed a response. The State has not filed a brief.

By her Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have independently examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal, but we have found no such issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1969). Following our careful review of the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we conclude that there are no grounds for appellate review that would result in reversal of Appellant’s conviction or sentence.

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.3

Judy C. Parker Justice

Do not publish.