Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva, 13-25-00548-CR, January 29, 2026.
On appeal from the 12th District Court of Walker County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s adjudication of guilt for a second-degree felony fentanyl possession charge following an Anders brief submission, finding no arguable grounds for appeal. However, the Court exercised its authority to modify the written judgment to correctly reflect that the appellant pleaded “Not True” to the State’s motion to adjudicate, correcting a clerical error in the trial record.
Relevance to Family Law
For the family law practitioner, this case underscores the critical importance of record accuracy when a party’s criminal history “crosses over” into a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) or a high-conflict divorce. While the adjudication of guilt and subsequent ten-year sentence are the primary drivers for a “best interest” or “endangerment” finding, the distinction between a plea of “True” and “Not True” goes directly to a party’s credibility and their willingness to accept responsibility. In a custody battle, a modified judgment reflecting a “Not True” plea allows a parent to argue they have consistently contested the allegations of drug use, whereas a clerical error left uncorrected could be used by opposing counsel to paint a false picture of an admission of guilt.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Harvey Lee Davis IV originally pleaded guilty to the possession of four grams or more but less than 200 grams of fentanyl, a second-degree felony, and was placed on eight years of deferred adjudication community supervision. In August 2025, the State moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging violations of his supervision terms. At the hearing, Davis entered pleas of “Not True” to all allegations. The trial court, however, found the allegations to be true, revoked his supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to ten years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Despite the “Not True” plea entered during the hearing, the trial court’s written judgment erroneously stated that Davis had pleaded “True” to the motion to adjudicate. Davis’s court-appointed appellate counsel subsequently filed an Anders brief, asserting that the appeal was frivolous.
Issues Decided
The Court considered two primary issues: first, whether there were any arguable grounds for reversal regarding the adjudication of guilt or the sentence imposed; and second, whether the written judgment should be modified to accurately reflect the appellant’s plea in the underlying proceedings.
Rules Applied
The Court applied the framework established in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (1991), which requires an independent review of the entire record to determine if an appeal is wholly frivolous. Additionally, the Court relied on its power under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b) and Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), which grants appellate courts the authority to reform and correct judgments to make the record “speak the truth” when the court possesses the necessary information to do so.
Application
In its narrative review, the Court of Appeals followed the procedural mandates for an Anders brief, confirming that Davis’s counsel had fulfilled all professional obligations, including notifying Davis of his right to file a pro se response. After conducting an independent examination of the record, the Court agreed with counsel that no reversible error existed regarding the adjudication of guilt or the ten-year sentence. However, the Court identified a discrepancy between the oral proceedings and the written judgment. Specifically, the record established that Davis pleaded “Not True” to the State’s motion, yet the written judgment stated he pleaded “True.” Because the Court had the necessary data to correct this, it invoked its reformation power to ensure the judicial record accurately reflected the adversarial nature of the revocation hearing.
Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment of conviction and its ten-year sentence, concluding that the appeal was indeed frivolous under Anders.
In a separate and distinct holding, the Court modified the trial court’s judgment of conviction to reflect that the “Plea to Motion to Adjudicate” was “NOT TRUE,” rather than “True.” This modification was deemed necessary to ensure the record accurately documented the procedural history of the case.
Practical Application
Family litigators must recognize that a felony fentanyl adjudication is often the “death knell” for a client’s quest for Joint Managing Conservatorship or unsupervised access. However, the details of the criminal record matter for impeachment and character evidence. If a client is facing a SAPCR while a criminal adjudication is pending, counsel should monitor the criminal judgment for clerical errors similar to the one in Davis. A “True” plea in a criminal record can be used in a family court as a judicial admission of the underlying drug conduct, whereas a corrected “Not True” plea preserves the client’s position that the State’s allegations were contested, even if they were ultimately proven.
Checklists
Scrutinizing Criminal Judgments for SAPCR Evidence
- Verify Plea Consistency: Cross-reference the “Plea to Motion” in the written judgment with the official court reporter’s transcript.
- Identify Adjudication Status: Distinguish between a “deferred adjudication” (which may not be a “conviction” for all civil purposes) and a “final adjudication of guilt” (which is a felony conviction).
- Check for Clerical Errors: If a judgment is being used against your client, check if a “Not True” plea was misrecorded as “True,” and if so, move the trial court or appellate court for a nunc pro tunc order or modification.
Weaponizing Drug Adjudications in Custody Litigation
- Statutory Presumptions: Use the adjudication to trigger the Texas Family Code § 153.004 presumption against appointing a parent as a managing conservator if there is a history of drug-related endangerment.
- Expert Testimony: Use the quantity of fentanyl (4g to 200g is a significant amount) to establish a “significant impairment” to the child’s physical health or emotional development.
- Supervised Access: Leverage the ten-year TDCJ sentence to argue for permanent supervised access or the complete denial of access under the “best interest” standard.
Citation
Davis v. State, No. 13-25-00548-CR, 2026 WL _____ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jan. 29, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
In Texas family courts, fentanyl is currently viewed with zero tolerance. A 10-year felony adjudication for possession is not just a “criminal matter”; it is a primary exhibit for a “conduct that endangers” finding under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E). This ruling can be weaponized by a petitioner in a termination or custody case to argue that the parent’s lifestyle—specifically the possession of a highly lethal opioid—poses a continuous danger to the child. Furthermore, the fact that the defendant pleaded “Not True” and was still adjudicated is a strategic goldmine for cross-examination in a SAPCR: it allows counsel to argue that the parent is “in denial” about their substance abuse issues, failing to take the first step toward rehabilitation by refusing to acknowledge the violations found “true” by a criminal court.
~~aab89afc-3b99-492a-86fe-5b3fc70e4383~~
Share this content: