## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 18

- 00173

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 355th District Court Hood County, Texas Trial Court No. CR13249

Before Pitt man, Bassel, and Womack , JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### R AVEN 

### F AYE 

### T HIEBAUD 

### , Appellant

V


### . The State of Texas2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Raven Faye Thiebaud appeals from the trial court’s revocation of her community supervision and her sentence of twenty

- four months’ confinement in the State Jail Divisi on. Because we agree with Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel that her appeal is meritless as to her revocation and sentence , but we also modify the
trial court’s judgment to delete an improperly assessed filing fee , we affirm the trial court’s judgme nt as modified.
BRIEF FACTS
In October 2015, pursuant to a plea bargain, Appellant pled guilty to possession of less than one gram of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) , and
the trial court convicted her and sentenced her to twenty

- four months in the S tate J ail
D ivision but suspended imposition of the sentence , placing her on community supervision for four years. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.102(6) (providing methamphetamine is a Penalty Group 1 substance), .115 (a), (b) (providing
posses sion of a Penalty Group 1 substance is a state jail felony if the amount possessed, including adulterants or dilutants, weighs less than a gram) ; Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.35(a) (providing range of confinement for a state jail felony is 180 days to two yea rs). In January 2018, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant ’ s community supervision , alleging several violations of the court

- ordered conditions of community supervision. Appellant pled true to allegations that she:3

• Failed to report by mail to her community supervision officer in January, February, September, and November 2017;

• Failed to pay crime

- stopper fees for March 2016;

• Failed to pay court cost fees for May 2016, September 2016, and November 2016 through November 2017;

• Failed to pay $60 monthl y in community supervision fees for January 2016, March 2016 through July 2016, September 2016 through February 2017, April 2017 through June 2017, and September 2017 through November 2017; and

• Failed to provide documentation showing her attendance and com pletion of the twelve

- step program of Celebrate Recovery. After a hearing, the trial court revoked Appellant ’ s community supervision and sentenced her to twenty

- four months ’ confinement in the State Jail Division, awarding her credit for time served.
DISCU SSION Appellant ’ s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief under Anders v. California , representing that there is nothing in the record that might arguably support this appeal. 386 U.S. 738, 744

– 45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967 ). Counsel ’ s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See id. ; In re Schulman , 252 S.W

. 3d 403, 406

– 12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (or ig. proceeding) (analyzing the effect of Anders ). In her pro se response to counsel ’ s brief, Appellant complains of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and the length of her sentence. The State has not filed a brief.4

Once an appellant ’ s court

- appoint ed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders , we must independently examine the record. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Only then may we grant counsel ’ s motion to withdraw. See Penson
v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed
the record , counsel’s brief , and Appellant’s pro se response. In our independent review of the record, we discovered that the bil l of costs includes charges of $990, but only $70 of those charges were imposed as a result of Appellant’s revocation case. Because Appellant did not appeal from her conviction and original sentence, the $920 in costs originally imposed cannot now be chal lenged. See Wiley v. State , 410 S.W.3d 313, 320

– 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 201 3 ). Included in the new charges is a $15 filing fee for the State’s motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision. Although a civil statute mandates that when the State prevails in a civil lawsuit, the opposing party must pay the State’s filing fees, see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 8.02, we have not found a corresponding criminal statute. District clerks have no discretion t o impose costs not authorized by the Texas Legis lature. Johnson v.
State , 423 S.W.3d 385, 389 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (“Only statutorily authorized costs may be assessed against a criminal defendant.”). We therefore modify the judgment, the incorporated order to withdraw funds, and the bill of costs to delete this $15 fee.
See Thomas v. State , No. 02

- 18

- 00337

- CR, 2019 WL 166001, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Jan. 10, 2019, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (deleting5

criminal filing fee because there was no statutory basis for the fee ); Diaz v. State , No.
10

- 16

- 00218

- CR, 2017 WL 4413436, at *4 (Tex. App.

— Waco Oct. 4, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (same) ; see also Bray v. State , 179 S.W.3d 725, 726 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (holding that an appella te court has the authority to modify a judgment in an Anders appeal). Except for th is improperly imposed fee, w e agree with counsel that this appeal is frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
CONCLUSION Accordingly, we grant counsel ’ s motion to withdraw and affirm as modified the
trial court ’ s judgment and the order to withdraw funds incorporated therein

. Per Curiam Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered: February 28 , 2019