## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 19

- 00146

- CR

_________ __________________

On Appeal from the 355th District Cou rt Hood County, Texas Trial Court No. CR12378

Before Bird well, J .; Sudderth, C.J.; and Wallach, J. Per Curiam Memorandu m Opinion 

### D AVID 

### E UGENE 

### E THRIDGE 

### , Appellant

V


### . T HE 

### S TA TE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION David Euge ne Ethridge appeals from a judgment revoking his community supervision and sentencing him to ten years ’ confinement

. 1 E thridge sti pulated verbally and in writing t hat all of the allegatio ns in the State ’ s m otion to r e voke were true and that he had “ nothing to say to the Court as t o wh y ” the judge “ should

not
. . . pronounce [] ” his sentence
. We affirm.
E thridge ’ s court

- appointed appel l ate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw
and a brief under Anders v. California , re presenting that this case present s no

no nfrivolous grounds for appeal. 386 U.S. 738, 744

– 45, 87 S. Ct. 13 96, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of t he record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relie f. See id. ; In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406

– 12 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. 2008) (orig. p roceeding). Counsel also complied with the requi r ements set forth in Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 31 9

– 20 & n. 2 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 14). Although counsel provided Ethridge with a copy of the appellate record and this court provided
him a n opp ortunity to respond to the Anders brief, Ethridge di d n ot do so. Likewise,
the State has not filed a brief.
Once an appellant’s court

- appoint ed at torney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders , we must

1 The trial court had first pl aced Ethridge on deferred adjudication, but it la ter adjudicated Eth ridge guilty , su spended the imposition of sentence, and placed hi m on community supervision.3 independently examine the record. See Staffo r d v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Only then may we grant co unsel ’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v.
Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).
We have carefu lly reviewed the record

. After reviewing the itemized bill of

cos ts, we conclude that there is no statutory authority au thorizin g the $15 assessed for “Motion to Proceed/Revoke Fee ” in connection wit h the December 2 018 motion to revoke community supervisio n . 2 See Thiebaud v. State , No. 02

- 18

- 00173

- CR, 2019 WL 983747, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Feb. 28, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for public ation) (explaining that no criminal statute authorizes imposi tion

o f such filing fees)

. Nor i s there anyt hing in the record explaining the $1 discrepan cy bet ween the $143 .62 in court costs imposed in the judgment (and the inc orporated
order to wit hdraw fun ds) and the $142.62 itemized in the bill of costs. Because “[o]nly statutorily authorized court costs may be assessed against a crimi nal defendant,” we modify the judgment, t he incorporated order to withdraw funds, and the bi ll of costs
to delete th e $15 “ Mo tion to Procee d/Re voke Fee ” and the additional $1.00 not supported by the re cord , leaving total court c osts of $ 12 7 .62

. Se e Johnson v. State , 423 S.W.3d 385, 389 (Tex. Crim . App. 2014); Thiebaud , 2019 WL 983747, at * 2 ; see also Bray
v. State , 179 S.W.3d 725, 726 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (en banc)

2 T he tr ial court also i ncluded this $15 fe e in its prior order adjudicating Ethr idge delinquent and placing him on community supervis ion, but he cannot now challen g e th e i mpo sition of that fee. See Wiley v. State , 410 S .W.3d 313, 320

– 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).4 (holding that an appellate court has the authorit y to modify a judgment in an Anders appeal). Except for th e improperl y imposed fee and $1.00 discrepancy in the court

co sts , we agree with counsel that t his appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that arguably might sup port the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. C rim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant counsel ’ s

mo tion to withdraw and affirm as mo dified the trial court ’ s judgment and incorporated order to withdraw funds

. Per Curiam
Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: November 7, 2019