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

___________________________ No. 02

- 22

- 00290

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 355th District Court Hood County, Texas Trial Court No. CR13971

Befo re Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. M emorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel 

### M ICHAEL 

### A NTHONY 

### C ORTEZ 

### , Appellant

V


### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appella nt Michael Anthony Cortez pleaded gui lty to sexual assault of a child and received ten years of deferred adjudication community supervision and a $1,500
fi ne. The State later filed a petition to adjudicate guilt. Cortez pleaded true to the allegations con tained in the petition. After a hearing, the trial court assessed a sentence of eighteen year s in prison. Cortez appeals his conviction.
After reviewin g the record an d concluding that no argu able groun ds for a ppeal exist, Cortez ’ s court

- appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel and a brief in support of that motio n. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738,
744

– 45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (19 67). C ounsel ’ s brief and motion meet th e

r eq uirements of Ande rs ; counsel has present ed a professional evaluation of the en tire
record demonstrating why there are no arguable groun ds for relief. Id. , 87 S. Ct. at
1400. We have independently exami ned the record , as is our duty u p o n the filing of

an Anders brief. Se e Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Cri m. App. 1991); Mays
v. State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 922

– 23 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.); see also Penson
v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 8 2

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). Cortez has not filed a response on his own behalf. The State also declined to file a response.
After ca refully reviewin g the r ecord and counsel ’ s brief, with the exception of a
minor correction to the trial court ’ s judgment , we agree with counsel that th is appeal
is wholly frivolous and without merit. Our independent revie w of the record reveals nothing furth er that might arguably s upport the appeal

. See Ble dsoe v. Stat e , 178 S.W.3d3 82 4, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see al so Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
The trial court ’ s judgment does, however, require modification r egarding court

costs. The bill of costs shows that the $200.82 remaining is from the original $1,500
fine that was assessed a t deferred adjudication. The judgment adjudicating guilt assesses $200.82 as “court cost s,” and notes that the trial court assessed a fine of $ 1,500 at deferred adjudication. However, no fine was pronounced at the adjudication of guilt

. See E tte v. Stat e , 559 S.W.3d 511, 513, 515 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (stating general rule that fines must be orally pronounced in the defendant’s
presence ); Taylor v. St ate , 131 S.W.3d 497, 500, 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (s tating that when deferred

- adjudication community supervision is revoked and guilt adjudicated, the order adjudicating guilt sets aside the deferred

- adjudication order, including any previously imposed fine)

. Accordingly, we delete the $200.82 cost from
th e judgment, order to withdraw funds , and bill of costs
. We grant counse l ’ s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court ’ s jud gmen t as modified

. /s/ Dabney Bassel Dabney Bassel Justice Do Not Publish Te x. R. A pp. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered : June 29, 2023