Opinion filed November 15, 2018

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-18-00099-CR

___________

GEORGE ALCALA GONZALES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 32nd District Court

Nolan County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12300

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Based upon an open plea of guilty, the trial court convicted Appellant, George 

Alcala Gonzales, of the offense of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. 

Appellant pleaded true to both enhancement allegations, and the trial court assessed

his punishment at confinement for twenty-five years and a fine of $1,000. We 

modify and affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The 

motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously 
2

examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous.

Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, the motion to withdraw, 

and the appellate record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the record 

and file a response to counsel’s brief. Appellant has not filed a response.

1 Counsel 

also advised Appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review in order 

to seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4, 

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). 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

We note, however, that the judgment contains a nonreversible error. The 

record reflects that Appellant was convicted of a third-degree felony but was 

sentenced as a habitual offender under Section 12.42(d) of the Penal Code. See TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(d) (West Supp. 2018), § 37.09(a)(1), (c) (West 2016). 

Section 12.42(d) does not authorize the imposition of a fine. See id. § 12.42(d); 

Blevins v. State, 74 S.W.3d 125, 132 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref’d). 

Because the fine imposed by the trial court is not authorized by the applicable statute,

we modify the trial court’s judgment to delete the fine. See Light v. State, No. 05-

99-01384-CR, 2000 WL 1176604, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 21, 2000, no pet.)

 

1This court granted Appellant more than thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response 

to counsel’s brief.

2We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R.

APP. P. 68.
3

(not designated for publication) (Anders appeal in which appellate court modified 

trial court’s judgment to delete an unauthorized fine).

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, modify the judgment of the trial court 

to delete the $1,000 fine, and affirm the judgment as modified.

PER CURIAM

November 15, 2018

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Wright, S.C.J.3

Willson, J., not participating.

 

3

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.