Opinion filed August 15 , 201 9



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 1 9

- 00 021

- CR

__________ MATTHEW JOHN ARMINDARIZ , Appellant
V

. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 358 th District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D

- 45,887

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N The jury convicted Appellant, Matthew John Armindariz
, of the offense of
murder a nd assessed h is punishment at confinement for life

. We modify the t rial court’s judgment to delete a portion of the Time Payment Fee assessed as a court

cost and, as modified, affirm the trial court’s judgment

. Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the re are2 no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a c opy of
the brief
, a copy of the motion to withdraw , and a copy of both the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Couns el advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 68

. Court

- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

. Appellant subsequently filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief. We have reviewed Appellant’s response. In addressing an Anders brief and a pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal
exist

. 1
We note, however, that the judgment contains a nonreversible error. I n the judgment, the trial court order ed Appellant to pay court costs, including a Time Payment Fee of $25 pursuant to S ection 133.103 of the Texas Local Government
Code

. See T EX

. L OC

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 133.103 (West Supp. 2018 ). We recently
held that sub section s (b) and (d) of that section are facially unconstitutional because

1 We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3 the collected fees are allocated to general revenue and are not sufficiently related to the criminal justice system

. See King v. State , No. 11

- 17

- 00179

- CR, 2019 WL 3023513, at * 1, 5

– 6 (Tex. App.

— Eastland July 11, 2019 , pet. filed ) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Accordingly, the trial court erred when it assessed a Time Payment Fee under S ections 133.103 , subsections (b) and (d) of the Texas
Local Government Code as a court cost

. See id.
When the trial co urt erroneously includes fees as court costs, we should modify the trial court’s judgment to remove the improperly assessed fees. See
Cates v. State , 402 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). We , therefore, modify the trial court’s judgment to delete $22.50 of the Time Payment Fee assess ed as court

costs , leaving a Time Payment Fee of $2.50

. See King , 2019 WL 3023513, at *5

– 6. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw
, and we affirm the judgment of the
trial co urt as modified

.

PER CURIAM

August 15 , 2019 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Stretcher , J., and Wright, S.C.J. 2
Willson, J., not participating.

2 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Ea stland, sitting by assignment.