## In t he Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 22

- 00174

- CR

KIEERA DENICE EVANS , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court Red River County, Texas Trial Court No. CR03257

Be fore Stevens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION
On June 13, 2022 , Kieera Denice Evans pled guilty, pursuant to a plea

- bargain agreement , to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. 1 The tria l court def erred the adjudication of h er guilt ; placed h er on community supervision for ten years ; ordered her to pay
court costs , attorney fees, and reimbursement ; and imposed a fine of $1, 000.00

. Six weeks later, the S tate filed a motion to revoke Evans ’ s communit y supervision and for a final adjudication of
h er guilt. After a final hearing, in which Evans pled “ true ” to four of the State’s allegations, the
trial court found a ll of the State’s allegations to b e tru e, revoked Evans ’s community su pervis ion ,

a djudicated h er guilt, sentenced h er to sixteen years’ imprisonment , but did not impose any fine

. This appeal followed.
Evans ’ s appellate counsel filed a brief that outlined the procedural history of the case, provided a deta iled summary o f the eviden ce elicited duri ng the trial court proceedings, and stated that counsel found no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel provided a professional evaluation of t he record and demonstrat ed why t her e are no ar guable grounds to be advanced , as require d b y law

. See A nders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 743

– 44 (1967); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 509

– 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 81 2

– 13 (Tex.
C rim . App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

1 See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 22.02( a )( 2 ).3

Evans ’ s counsel filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal and provided Evans with a copy of the brief an d the motion to withdraw

. H er counsel also informed her of h er right to review the r ecord and to file a pro se response and provided Evans with a copy of the appellate record

. On March 9 , 202 3 , we notified Evans that h er pro se response was due on or before April 10 , 202 3

. Also, by letter dated April 19 , 202 3 , we notifi ed
Evans that th e case would be s ubmitted on briefs on May 10 , 202 3

. Evans did not file a pro se
respon se . We reviewed the entire appellate record and i ndependently determined that no reversible error exists. See Bl edsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 2005). “Howe ver, appellate courts are authorized to reform judgments and affirm as modified in Anders cases involving non

- reversible er ror.” Mitchell v. State , 653 S.W.3d 295, 297 (Tex. App.

— Texarka na 2022, no pet. ) (comprehensively discussing appell ate cases th at ha ve modified judgments in Anders ca ses). We also have authori ty to modify a certified bill of costs. 2 See id

. at 298; Haley
v. State , No. 06

- 22

- 00086

- CR , 2023 WL 141021 , at * 3 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana Jan. 10, 2023 , no pet.) (mem. op., not de signated f or publ ication).
In this case, the certified bill of costs in cluded an entry of $1 , 0 32.00 for “CRIMINAL
FINES ” and an entr y of $25.00 for “TIME PAY.” The order of defe rred adjudication impose d a fine of $1,000.00. However, “ when an accused re ceives de fe rred a djudic ation, no sentence is imposed. Then, when guilt is adjudicated, the order adjudicating guilt sets aside the order

2 “ Court c osts, a s reflect e d in a certified bill of costs, need neither be orally pronounced nor incorporated by r eference in the judgme nt to be effective. ” Armstrong v. State , 340 S.W.3d 75 9, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (citing Weir v. State , 278 S.W.3d 364, 367 (T ex. Cri m. A pp. 2 0 09) )

.4

deferring adjudication, including the previously imposed fine. ” T aylor v. State , 131 S.W .3d 497, 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Wh en the trial court adjudicated Evans’s guilt and imposed her sentence, it did not orally pronounce a fine. Since th e trial court did not orally assess a fine as part of her sen tence, we modify the certified bill of costs by delet ing the entry o f $1,032. 00 for

“ CRIMINAL FINES

. ” See id

. Also, the T exas Court of Criminal Appeals has concluded that a time payment fee lik e the one imposed here “must indeed be struck for being prematurely assessed because a defendant ’ s appeal suspends the duty to pa y court c os ts and therefore suspends the running of the clock for the purposes of the time payment fee.” Dulin v. State , 620 S .W.3d 129, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). Because appellate proceedings are sti ll pending in this case , the assessment of the time payment f

ee is pr emature. Id

. Consequently, we delete the time payment fee “in [its] entirety, without prejudice to [it ] bein g assessed later if, more than 30 days after the issuance of the appellate ma ndate, the defendant has failed to completely pay an y fine, cou rt cos ts, or restitution” owed. Id

. at 133. We further modify the certif ied bill of costs by deleting the entry of $25.00 for “ TIME PAY.”5

In the Anders context, once we determine that the app eal is without merit, we must either dismiss the appeal or a ffi rm th e trial c ourt’s judgment. See Anders , 386 U.S. 738. Therefore, we modify the certified bill of costs by deleting the entry of $1,032.00 for “ CRIMINAL FINES ” and by deleting the entry of $25.00 for “ TIME PAY. ” We affirm the trial court ’ s judgment

. 3

Charles van Cleef Justice Date Submitted: May 10 , 202 3 Date Decided: May 11 , 202 3 Do Not Publish

3 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordan ce with Anders , grant cou nsel’s request to withdraw from further representati on of appellant in this case. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be a ppointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Cou rt of Criminal Appeals, a ppellant must either retain an attorney to file a pe tition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for d iscretionary review . An y pe t ition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the dat e of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing w as overruled by this Court, see T EX
. R. A PP . P. 68.2, (2) must be filed wit h the c lerk of t h e Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see T EX
. R. A PP . P. 68.4.