Opinion filed July 8, 2021

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-19-00220-CR

__________

BOBBIE JACKSON CHAVEZ, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 70th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. A-17-1333-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 seconddegree felony offense of robbery. The jury assessed punishment at confinement for 

nine years and a fine of $2,500. We modify and affirm. 

1

We note that some of the documents in the record, including the indictment, 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 counsel 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 clerk’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 TEX. R. APP. 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 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 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.

2

2

We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R.

APP. 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 conclude 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 court’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 to 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.