## In t he

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 23

- 00246

- CR

PATRICIA MILANO , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 276th District Court

Titus County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR19070

Before S tevens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

O n February 5 , 2020, Pa tricia Milano pled guilty to intentionally or k nowingly

possessing methamphetamine in a n amount of one gram o r mo re but less t han fo ur grams

. See

T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN

. § 481.115( c ) (Supp.)

. The trial court deferr ed a finding o f

guilt and placed Milano on community supervision

. O n September 1, 2022

, the trial court

adjudicated Milano gu ilty of that offe nse

. Mi l ano was sentenced to five years ’ incarceration,

probated fo r five years. Thereafter, t he State moved to revoke Milano ’ s community supervision

.

After a revoca tion hearing, t he trial court revo ked Milano ’ s comm uni ty sup er vision and

sen tenced her t o five ye ars ’ in carce ration. M ilano appea ls

.

Milano ’ s attorney filed a brief stating that s he reviewed the record and found no

g enuinely arguable issu e s that c o uld be raised on appeal

. Th e brie f s e t s out t he pro cedural

h ist ory of the case and summarize s the evidence e licited during the t r ial co u rt proc eedings.

Since counsel provided a professional evaluation of the record demonst rating why there are n o

arguabl e grounds to be advanced , tha t eval uat i o n meets th e r equiremen ts of Anders v. California

.

And ers v . Califor

ni a , 386 U.S. 738, 743

– 44 (19 6 7); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Staf ford v. State , 813 S.W

. 2d 503, 5 09

– 10 (Tex. Crim.

App. 199 1 ) ; High v. S t ate , 5 73 S.W .2d 807, 812

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel O p.] 1 978).

Co un sel also filed a mot i o n wit h this C ourt seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

On May 3, 2024, c ouns el mailed copies of th e followi ng to Milano : (1) her Anders brief

,

( 2) her m otion to wit hdraw

, and (3) a motion f or pr o se acce ss t o the appellat e record lac king

o nly Milano ’ s signature

. Counsel also advised Milano that s he had until May 18 to mail the3

motion for pro se acce ss back to this Court

. On May 3, 2024, this Court advised M i lano that her

pro se motion for acces s to the record was “ due on or before Monday

, May 20, 202 4

. ” We did

not receive that pro se motion. On May 23, 2024, we notified Milano that the case had been set

fo r submission on “ Thursday, June 13, 2024

. ” W e received neither a pro se respon se fr om

Milano nor a motion reque stin g an extensi on of time in w hich t o f ile such a res ponse. We have

reviewed the entire appellate record and have independen tly determined that no reversi ble erro r

exis ts

. Se e Bledsoe v. S tate , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826

– 27 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 2005).

We h av e also r eviewed t he cer tified b il l of c ost s. There is a time pa yment fee assessed as

follows: “ Time Payment Reimb Fee ” of $15.00. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals h as

recently co ncluded that a time payment fee like the one impo sed here “must in deed be st ruc k for

being pr emature ly assessed b e c ause a defendant’s appeal suspen ds t he duty to pay court costs

and therefore suspends the running of the clock for the purposes o f t he time pay ment fee.” Dulin

v. State , 620 S. W.3d 129, 129 (Te x. Cr im. App. 202 1). “ As a consequence, even n ow,

assessm en t of t he time payment fee in this case w ould be premature because appellate

proceedings are still pending.” Id. Pursuant to Duli n , w e strike t he time payment fee “in [its]

entir ety , without pre

judice to [it ] bei ng ass ess e d later if, more th an 30 days af t e r th e issuance of

the appellate mand at e, th e defendant has failed to completely pay any fine, court costs, or

r e stitution” owed. Id. at 133.

W e strike “ TPRF 2 Time Payment Reimb Fe e $15.00 ” from the Bi ll of Costs an d re d uce

the reimbursement in the Bill of Costs from $72.00 to $57.00.4

We af fir m t h e trial co u rt’s judgm ent. 1

Charles van Cleef

Jus t ice

Date Subm itt ed: June 13

, 202 4

Date Decided: June 14 , 2 02 4

Do Not Pu bl ish

1 Sinc e we agr ee tha t this case pre s e nts n o reversible error, we also, in a cco rdance with Anders , gra nt counsel’s

reques t t o with d raw from f urther repre se ntation o f appell an t in this case

. S ee A nders , 386 U.S. at 744. No subst itu te

cou nsel wi l l b e a pp ointed. S hould a ppella nt desire t o se e k furt her review of this case by th e Te xas Court of

Criminal Appe al s, appellant must either re tain a n attorne y to file a pe ti tion f or dis c reti onary r eview or f ile a pro se

petit ion for d iscretionary re view. Any pet it i on f or d iscreti onary re view ( 1) must b e fil ed withi n thirty days from

either the dat e o f this opinion or the d at e on which the la s t timely motion f or rehearing w as overr ule d b y thi s Cour t

,

see T EX

. R. A P P . P. 68.2, (2) must b e filed wit h t he clerk of th e T exas C ou rt of C riminal Appeal s, see T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with th e requirements of Rule 68 .4 of the Texas R u le s of A p pellate Pr ocedure, see

T EX

. R. A P P

. P . 68 .4.