## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

_______________________________

06

- 19

- 00236

- CR

_______________________________
GABRIEL LOGAN OROCIO , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 5th District Court Cass County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019F00147

Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and Carter , * JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

___________________ *Jack Carter, Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION
A Cass County jury convicted Gabriel Logan Orocio of indecency with a child by contact, a second

- degree felony. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 21.11(a). The trial court imposed the jury’s assessed sentence of ten years’ imprisonment. Orocio appeals. 1
Orocio’s attorney on appeal has filed a brief stat ing that he has reviewed the record and has found no genuinely arguable issues that could be r aised. The brief sets out the procedural history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the trial court proceeding s . Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California , counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstra ting why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 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. State , 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 March 24 , 2020, counsel certified that he mailed to Orocio a copy of the brief, the motio n to w ithdraw, and a motion for pro se access to the appellate record lacking only Orocio’s signature. Orocio was informed of his right to review the record and file a pro se response

. On April 14, 2020, Orocio filed his motion for pro se access to the a ppellate record. On April 20, this Court granted Orocio’s motion for pro se access to the appellate record, reciting that on April 16, 2020, counsel mailed a complete paper copy of the appellate record to Orocio. The order set a

1 In our companion ca use number s 06

- 19

- 002 34

- CR and 06

- 19

- 002 35

- CR, Orocio also appeals from two convictions of aggravated sexual assault of a child.3

June 5, 2020, deadline fo r Orocio to file a pro se response to his counsel’s Anders brief. On July 14, 2020, this Court further informed Orocio that the case would be set for submission on the briefs on August 4, 2020. We received neither a pro se response from Orocio nor a moti on requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response. However, in Anders cases, appellate courts “have the authority to reform judgments and affirm as modified in cases where there is non reversible error.” Ferguson v. State , 435 S.W.3d 291 , 294 (Tex. App.

—

Waco 2014, pet. struck) (comprehensively discussing appellate cases that have modified judgments in Anders cases). Here, the judgment imposes court costs in the amount of $314.00, which were also imposed in Orocio’s judgment of conviction in trial court cause number 2019F00125. However, when a defendant is convicted of two or more offenses in a single criminal action, “the court may assess each court cost or fee only once against the defendant.”
T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 102.073(a). Consequently, we must modify the judgment by deleting the court costs from the judgment. We have reviewed the entire appellate record and have independently determined that no reversible error exists. Accordingly, we modify the trial court’ s judgment by deleting the court costs from the judgment.4

As modified, w e affirm the judgment of the trial court. 2

Jack Carter Justice Date Submitted: August 4, 2020 Date Decided: August 12 , 2020 Do Not Publish

2 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders , grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointe d. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition f or 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 for rehearing was overruled by this Court, s ee T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk 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 Procedure, see T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68.4.