Affirmed as mo dified and Memorandum Majority and Dissenting Opinion s

filed August 31, 202 3
.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14
- 2 2
- 00 5 93
- C R

_ ___________ DUSTIN SHEA KOKENES , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal fr om the 1 55 th District Court

Austin C ou nt y , Texas Trial C ourt Ca u se No
. 2020R
- 0022

M EMORANDUM M AJORITY O PINIO N Appellant Dustin Shea Kokenes appeals his conviction f or stalking

. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 42.072

. Appellant’s appointed coun sel filed a bri ef in which he conc ludes the app eal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why , accor di ng to2

counsel, the re are no a rguable grounds to be adv anced. See High v. Stat e , 573 S. W .2d 807, 811

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and fil e a pro se respo nse
. See S taff ord v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 5 12 (Tex. Crim . Ap p. 1991). As of this date, more than 60 days have passed and no pro se brief has been filed. There are two minor issues regarding court costs that this court has noted in its own re view of the rec or d , though they do not other wise wa rrant reversing appella nt ’ s convi ction or otherwise modifying his sentence , nor do they require the assistance of counsel to resolve

. See Robison v. State , No s . 14

- 19

- 00957

- CR & 14

- 19

- 00982

- CR, 2020 WL 5198338, at *1 (T e x . App.

— Houston [ 14 th Dist.] Sept

. 1, 2020 , no pet. ) (citi ng Ferguso n v. State , 435 S.W.3d 291, 295 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2014 , no pet.) (acknowledging that c ourts are “ not required to abate [ an Anders ] appeal for app ointment of new counsel if the judgment m ay be modified ” ) ; Bray v. State , 179 S. W.3d 725, 729 (Tex. App

. — Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (declining to abate an appeal for appointment of new counsel to raise an issue the appeals court had already ruled on, deeming such to be a “ useless task ” )

. A ppellan t ’ s s entence included being asse sse d $2 90 .00 in consolidated c ourt c osts , reflecting $18 5.00 in costs payable to the state comp troller, see Tex. Loc

. Gov ’ t Code Ann. § 133.102(a)(1), and $105 .00 payable to local government, se e id. § 134.101(a). Th e under lyi ng statutes only support those costs for o ffenses committed on or after January 1, 2020. Id. § 133.102( c) (effective Jan. 1, 2020); Authorl ee v. State , No. 14

- 20

- 00821

- CR, 2022 WL 220267, at *4 (Tex. App.

— Houston [ 14 th Dist.] Ja n. 25, 2022 , pet . ref ’ d )

. Th e evidence presented in the trial
court was unequ ivocal t hat appellant ’ s offense was committed in 2018 and 2019

. Accordingly, as the applicable statute for state

- payable costs only would make3

appellant liable for $133.00 in costs, whil e no stat ute ap pli es to make app ellant liable for loca l

- payable c osts for off ense s committed in 2018 or 2019 , we will modify the judgment and its accompanying bill of cost to re flect appellant is liable for only $13 3.00 in court costs payable to the state comp troller

. We ha v e carefully reviewe d the record an d counsel’s brief and a gree the appeal is oth erwise wholly frivolous and witho ut merit. Further, we find no
reve rsible error in the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an An ders brief or a pro se response when we have dete rmine d there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 8 24, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modified

. PER CURIAM

P anel c onsists of Justices Wise, Bou rli o t, and Spain. (Bourlio t, J., concurring without opinion) (Spain, J. , dissenting).

Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).