Opinion filed July 8, 2021

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-19-00255-CR

___________

DARRELL JAN PORTER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 244th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-18-1229-CR

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

Appellant, Darrell Jan Porter, waived his right to a jury and entered an open 

plea of guilty to the third-degree felony offense of assault family violence. Appellant 

also pleaded true to an enhancement allegation. The trial court found Appellant 

guilty, found the enhancement allegation to be true, and assessed Appellant’s

punishment at confinement for fifteen years. We modify the trial court’s judgment 

and affirm as modified.
2

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

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

examines the record and applicable law and concludes that this appeal is without 

merit. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion 

to withdraw, a copy of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and an 

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

file a response to counsel’s brief. 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. 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). 

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

1

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

judgment, the trial court ordered Appellant to pay court costs, including a Time 

Payment Fee of $25. In light of the recent opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals 

in Dulin, we conclude that the time payment fee must be struck in its entirety as 

prematurely assessed. See Dulin v. State, 620 S.W.3d 129, 133 & n.29 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2021). When the trial court erroneously includes fees as court costs, we should 

modify the trial court’s judgment to remove the improperly assessed fees. See 

Cates v. State, 402 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

1

We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
3

Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment and the bill of cost to delete 

the time payment fee of $25, without prejudice to a time payment fee being assessed 

later “if, more than 30 days after the issuance of the appellate mandate, [Appellant] 

has failed to completely pay any fine, court costs, or restitution that he owes.” See 

Dulin, 620 S.W.3d at 133. 

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

as set forth above; and, as modified, affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

PER CURIAM

July 8, 2021

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

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.