In the

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 Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On February 5, 2020, Patricia Milano pled guilty to intentionally or knowingly 

possessing methamphetamine in an amount of one gram or more but less than four grams. See

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(c) (Supp.). The trial court deferred a finding of 

guilt and placed Milano on community supervision. On September 1, 2022, the trial court 

adjudicated Milano guilty of that offense. Milano was sentenced to five years’ incarceration, 

probated for five years. Thereafter, the State moved to revoke Milano’s community supervision. 

After a revocation hearing, the trial court revoked Milano’s community supervision and

sentenced her to five years’ incarceration. Milano appeals.

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

genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural 

history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings. 

Since counsel provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of Anders v. California.

Anders 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, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). 

Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal. 

On May 3, 2024, counsel mailed copies of the following to Milano: (1) her Anders brief,

(2) her motion to withdraw, and (3) a motion for pro se access to the appellate record lacking 

only Milano’s signature. Counsel also advised Milano that she had until May 18 to mail the 
3

motion for pro se access back to this Court. On May 3, 2024, this Court advised Milano that her 

pro se motion for access to the record was “due on or before Monday, May 20, 2024.” We did 

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

for submission on “Thursday, June 13, 2024.” We received neither a pro se response from

Milano nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response. We have

reviewed the entire appellate record and have independently determined that no reversible error 

exists. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We have also reviewed the certified bill of costs. There is a time payment fee assessed as 

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

recently concluded that a time payment fee like the one imposed here “must indeed be struck for 

being prematurely assessed because a defendant’s appeal suspends the duty to pay court costs 

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). “As a consequence, even now, 

assessment of the time payment fee in this case would be premature because appellate 

proceedings are still pending.” Id. Pursuant to Dulin, we strike the time payment fee “in [its] 

entirety, without prejudice to [it] being assessed later if, more than 30 days after the issuance of 

the appellate mandate, the defendant has failed to completely pay any fine, court costs, or 

restitution” owed. Id. at 133. 

We strike “TPRF2 Time Payment Reimb Fee $15.00” from the Bill of Costs and reduce 

the reimbursement in the Bill of Costs from $72.00 to $57.00. 
4

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

Charles van Cleef 

Justice

Date Submitted: June 13, 2024

Date Decided: June 14, 2024

Do Not Publish

1Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s 

request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute 

counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se

petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from 

either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, 

see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. 

P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see

TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.