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

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 18

- 00337

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 355th District Court Hood County, Texas Trial Court No. CR11135
Before Bassel, Kerr, and Pittman, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### L INDA 

### F RANCIES 

### T HOMAS 

### , Appellant

V


### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORA

NDUM OPINION Appellant Linda Francies Thomas appeals from the trial court’s judgment revoking her community supervision, adjudicating her guilt for theft over $1,500 but under $20,000, and sentencing her to twenty

- four mont hs’ confinement in state jail.
W e modify the judgment to delete $15 of the total costs assessed because the amount represents a filing fee that is not a statutorily authorized cost, and we affirm the judgment as modified

. A grand jury indicted Thomas for the offense of theft over $1,500 but under $20,000 committed on or about March 23, 2008. See Act of May 15, 2007, 80 th Leg., R.S., ch. 304 § 1, 2007 Tex. Gen. Laws 305 (amended 2015) (current version at Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(4)(A) (West Supp. 2018)). Under the terms of a plea

bargain agreement, Thomas pleaded guilty to the offense, and the trial court deferred adjudicating her guilt and placed her on community supervision for five years. The trial court also imposed a nonsuspended $ 1,000 fine and restitution in the amount of $ 2,588.73, which were terms of the plea

- bargain agreement. During the period of Thomas’s community supervision, the State filed a first amended motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt. The State alleged that
Thomas had violated seve n conditions of her community supervision : (A ) committed a new offense, (

B ) failed to report by mail to the Hood County supervision office for
twenty

- two months, ( C ) failed to report in person to the Tarrant County supervision office for one month, (

D ) failed to pay the monthly amount toward restitution for3

eleven month s , ( E ) failed to pay the monthly amount toward the fine and court costs for twenty

- six months, (F) failed to pay the one

- time Crime Stopper’s fee, and (G) failed to pay the monthly supervision fee for thirt y months. Thomas pleaded
“true” t o allegations (B) through (G). The trial court heard evidence regarding the State’s violation allegations, found allegations (B) through (G) to be true, and adjudicated Thomas guilty of the underlying offense. The trial court revoked Thomas’s community supervision, sentenced her to twenty

- four months’ confinement in state jail, and ordered her to pay restitut ion “as previously requested.”
Thomas ’s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S . Ct. 1396 , 1400 (1967). In compliance with Kelly v. State , counsel notified
Thomas of the motion to withdraw, provided h er a copy of the brief , informed h er of
h er right to fil e a pro se response, informed her of h er pro se right to seek discretionary re view should this court hold that the appeal is frivolous, and took
concrete measures to facilitate Thomas ’s review of the appellate record . 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court afforded Thomas the opportunity to file a response on h er o wn behalf, but s he did not do so

. As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is4

frivolous. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 1991); Mays v.
State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). 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 counsel’s brief and th e record. Our independent review of the record revealed that the bill of costs includes a $15 filing fee for the State’s motion to procee d to an adjudication of guilt. Although there is statutory authority for requiring the opposing party to pay the enti re amount of any filing fee attributable to the State when the State prevails in a civil lawsuit, 1 we have not found a corresponding criminal statute. District clerks do not have discretion to impose any fees not authorized by statute. See Johnson v. Sta te , 423 S.W.3d 385, 389 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (stating that “ [o]n ly statutorily authorized costs may be assessed against a criminal defendant”). We therefore modify the judgment to delete $15 from the total costs assessed, leaving total costs of $457. S ee Bray v. State , 179 S.W.3d 725, 726 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2005, no pet.); see also 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) (deleting criminal filing fee b ecause there was no statutory basis for the fee) . We likewise modify the bill of costs and the order to withdraw funds to delete $15, reducing the total court costs , fees, and restitution to $2,348.62.

1 See generally Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 8.02 (West 2017 ).5

Except for the error corrected by the modification de scribed above, we agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and wit hout merit; we find nothing in the record that arguably might support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824,
827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant c ounsel’s motion to withdraw
and af firm as modified the trial court’s judgment and the order to withdraw funds incorporated into the judgment

. Per Curiam
Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: January 10, 2019