## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort W orth

____________________

_______ No

. 02

- 1 9

- 0021 2

- CR No. 02

- 19

- 00213

- CR

_______________________ ____

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2

Tarrant County, Texas Tri al Court No. 1532787W, 1517268D Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Bassel, JJ

. M emorandum Opinion by C hief Justice Sudderth 

### G ABRIEL 

### E STRADA 

### , Appellant

V


### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 ME MORANDUM OPINION Appellant Gabriel Estra d a ap peals his conviction s for aggrav ated assault o f a public servant and unauthorized use of a vehicle

. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § § 22.02(b)(2 )(B), 31.07

. Appellant had been on d ef erred adju dication community supervision for bot h offenses, but the trial court adjudicated him guilty after finding that he had violated his community supervis ion by committing new offenses

. The

tr ial court sentenced appellant to t wo years ’ incarceration for the state

- jail felony of

una uthorized use of a veh icle and 20 years ’ confinement for the first

- degree felon y aggravate d assault of a public s ervant . A ltho ugh the trial court did not orally pronou nce fines at the adjudication hearing, t he trial court ’ s judgment for

unau th orized vehicle use imposes a fine of $200, and the judgment for aggravated assault of a publi c servant impose s a $600 fine. Upon conc lu di ng tha t “ no legally non

- frivolous grounds for appeal ” exist,

a ppellant ’ s court

- appointed appellate coun se l has filed a motion to withdraw a s counsel an d a brief in support of that motion. See A nders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744

– 45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 140 0 (196 7). Although not identifying the judgment error we describe below, counsel ’ s brief and motion meet the requir ements of Anders v. Californi a , which requires presenting a p rofessional evalu ation of the entire record demonst rating why there are no argu able grounds for re lief

. I d. , 87 S. Ct. at 1400

. We have independently examined the entire record, as is our duty upon the filing of an Anders brief

. See Staff ord v. State , 813 S. W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. C rim. App. 1991); Mays v

.3

State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 92 2

– 23 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.); see also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). A lthough provided a copy of the

reco rd , a ppellan t declined to file a pro se respon se. Th e State agreed with a pp ellant ’ s counsel ’ s assessme n t o f the case and h as not filed a brief. After carefully review

i ng the record and counsel ’ s brief , 1 we have determined that the judgm e n t s adjudicating gu il t , and in corporated orders to withdraw f und s from appellan t ’ s inmate trus t account , should be modi fi e d t o delete the fin es imposed

. Although the trial court ’ s original deferred

- adjudication orders containe d fines, t he trial court did not orally assess fine s as par t of appellant ’ s sente nces after a djudica ting appellant guilty a nd re voking his deferred ad j udi cation community supervi sion in both

ca s es . Therefore , the trial court co uld not impose fines in the written judgments adjudicatin g guilt

. See Taylor v. State , 131 S.W.3d 4 97, 5 02 (Tex . Crim. App. 2004). Ac cordingly, we modify the trial court ’ s judg m ent s adjudicating guilt , and the incorporated orders to withdraw funds from app el lan t ’ s inmate trust account, to delete the fines

. See id. ; Polk v. State , N o s. 02

- 19

- 00152

- CR, 02

- 19

- 0 0153

- CR, 02

- 19

-

1 Based on our stringent review of the record and our conclusion that the appeal s are indeed frivolous but fo r the cle ar modifiable error s in the judgme nts , ab at ing the appeal s for t he appoin tm ent of new appella t e c ounsel to brie f this arguable issue that is govern ed by clear authority would result in a waste of resources for all involved

. See Bray v. S t ate , 179 S.W.3d 7 25, 72 9

– 30 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2 005, no pet.) (en banc) (modif ying judgment in Anders appea l an d af firming ju dgment as modified rather than abating appeal for appointment of new counsel )

.4

00154

- CR, 202 0 WL 938149, at *1

– 2 (T ex. App.

–– Fort Worth Feb . 27, 2020, pet. ref ’ d) (mem. op., not d esignated for publ ication)

. Except for th e s e modification s to the judgments and i ncorporated withdrawal

o rders , we agree with counsel that th ese a ppeals are wholly frivo lous and without merit. Our independent re v iew of the records reveals nothing further that might arg ua bly support th e appeals. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2 005); see also Meza v. State , 206 S. W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim . App. 2006). We grant counsel ’ s motion to wit hdraw, modify the trial court ’ s judgments and incorpor at ed orders to withdraw funds to delete the fines, and affirm the judgments as modified. S ee Tex. R. App. P. 4 3.2(b); Bray , 179 S.W .3d at 72 9

. /s/ Bonnie Sudderth Bonn ie Su dderth Chief Justice Do Not Publish Tex. R

. Ap p. P. 47.2(b) Delivered : March 11, 2021