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

Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel

MICHAEL ANTHONY CORTEZ, Appellant

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Michael Anthony Cortez pleaded guilty to sexual assault of a child 

and received ten years of deferred adjudication community supervision and a $1,500 

fine. The State later filed a petition to adjudicate guilt. Cortez pleaded true to the 

allegations contained in the petition. After a hearing, the trial court assessed a 

sentence of eighteen years in prison. Cortez appeals his conviction. 

After reviewing the record and concluding that no arguable grounds for appeal 

exist, Cortez’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw as 

counsel and a brief in support of that motion. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 

744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s brief and motion meet the 

requirements of Anders; counsel has presented a professional evaluation of the entire 

record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. Id., 87 S. Ct. at 

1400. We have independently examined the record, as is our duty upon the filing of 

an Anders brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. 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, 82–83, 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 carefully reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, with the exception of a 

minor correction to the trial court’s judgment, we agree with counsel that this appeal

is wholly frivolous and without merit. Our independent review of the record reveals 

nothing further that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 
3

824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

The trial court’s judgment does, however, require modification regarding court 

costs. The bill of costs shows that the $200.82 remaining is from the original $1,500 

fine that was assessed at deferred adjudication. The judgment adjudicating guilt 

assesses $200.82 as “court costs,” 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 Ette v. State, 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. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 500, 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (stating 

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 

the judgment, order to withdraw funds, and bill of costs.

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment as 

modified.

/s/ Dabney Bassel

Dabney Bassel

Justice

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: June 29, 2023