Opinion filed July 8 , 2021



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _

_____ 

### No. 11

- 1 9

- 00 255

- 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 t he 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 a nd conclude s that this appeal is without
merit

. Counsel has provided A ppellant 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 A ppellant of h is right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of h is right to file a petition for discretionary review in order to seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 t hat no arguable grounds for appeal exis t

. 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 enti rety 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
C

ates 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 complet ely 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter , J., and W ill iams , J.