## In t he Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 23

- 00028

- CR

SHARDA JAMES AKA SHARNDA JAMES , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 102nd District Court Bowie County, Texas Trial Court No. 21F0 648

- 102

Before Stevens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION A Bowie County jury convicted Sharda James aka Sharnda James of the first

- degree

felony offense of aggravated robbery , 1 and the trial court sentenced him to tw e lve years’ imprisonment. 2 James appeals

. James ’ s appellate counsel has filed a brief stating that he r eviewed the record and found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal

. The brief sets out the proce dural history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceeding s
. Since counsel provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advance d , that evaluation m eet s the requirements of Anders v. California

. Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 743

– 44 (1967); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 509

– 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. St a t e , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. [ Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
On or about Ma y 1 8 , 2023, counsel mailed to James copies of the brief, the appel late record, and t h e motion to withdraw. C ounsel informed James of h is right s to review the record and to file a pro se response . By letter dated Ma y 1 8 , 2023, this Court notified James that his
pro se response to counsel’s brief was due on or before Jun e 19 , 2023. By le t t er dated June 27 , 2023 , we notified James that the case would be submitted on briefs on July 18 , 2023

. James

1 S ee T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 29. 03

.
2 The trial court also fin ed James $3,000.00 and ordered him to pay court costs

.3

file d neither a pro se response nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such

a response. We have reviewe d the entire appel late record and have independently determined that no

rever sible error exits. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). However, t he record shows that the b ill of c ost assessed James a time payment fee of $15.00. The Texas Cou rt of Criminal Appeals has recently co nc luded t hat a time payment fee like the one imposed here “must indeed be struck for bein g prematurely assessed because a
defendant ’ s appeal suspends the duty to pay court costs and therefore suspends the running of th e clock for the purposes o f the time pay ment fe e.” Dulin v. State , 620 S.W.3d 129, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). “A s a consequence, even now, assessmen t of the time payment fee in this case would be premature because appellate proceedings are still pending .” Id

. Pursuant to
Dulin , we st rike the time payment fee “in [its] entirety, without prejudice to [it] being asse ssed later if, more than 30 days after the issuance of the appellate mandate, the defendant has failed to completely pay any fine, court cost s, or restitution” owed. Id . at 133. We modif y the b ill of c ost by deleting the time payment fee.4

We affirm th e judgment of the trial court. 3

Scott E. Stevens Chief Justice
Date Submitted: July 18, 2023 Date Decided: August 4 , 2023
Do Not Publish

3 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders , grant counsel’s request to withdraw from f u rther r epresentation of appellant in t his case. S ee Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute cou nsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney t o file a petition for discretionary re view or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion fo r reheari ng was overruled by this Court, s ee T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the cler k of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate P r o cedure, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4.