O pinion filed July 8 , 2021



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 1 9

- 00 220

- CR

__________ BOBBIE JACKSON CHAVEZ, JR. , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 70th District Court E ctor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No

. A

- 1 7

- 1 333

- CR

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N O N R E M A N D The jury convicted Appellant, Bobbie Jackson Chavez, Jr. , 1 of the second

degree felony offense of robbery

. T he jury assessed punishment at confinement for nine years and a fine of $ 2 , 5 00. We modify and affirm.

1 We note tha t some of the documents in the record, including the indictmen t , show Appellant’s first

name to be “ Bobbie ” but that other documents in the record, including the judgment, show it to be “ Bobby .”2 Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which cou nsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit . Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, and a copy of both the cler k’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel 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. C ourt

- 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 filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief. In his response, Appellant asserts that he has been denied the right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal because appellate counsel did not consult with Appellant. 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 revi ewed 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, 82 6

– 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

. 2

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

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3 We note, however, that the judgment contains a nonreversible error. In
the judgment, the trial court ordered Appellant to pay court costs, including a
Time Payment Fee of $25

. In light of the recent opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Dulin , we c onclude that the time payment fee must be struck in its entirety as prematurely assessed. See Dulin v. State , 620 S.W.3d 129, 133 & n.29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). When the trial court erroneously includes fees as court costs, we should modify the trial cou rt’s judgment to remove the improperly
assessed fees. See Cates v. State , 402 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment and the bill of cost to delete the time payment fee of $25, without prejudice to a time payment fee being assessed later “if, more than 30 days after the issuance of the appellate mandate, [Appellant] has failed to completely pay any fine, court costs, or restitution that he owes.” See
Dulin , 620 S.W.3d at 133. We grant counsel’s motion t o withdraw; modify the judgment of the trial court as set forth above; and, as modified, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

PER CURIAM

July 8 , 2021 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.