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

___________________________ No. 02

- 19

- 00048

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 355th District Court Hood County, Texas Trial Court No. CR1 3415

Before Bassel, Ke rr, and Birdwell, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### R OSS 

### W ILLIAMS 

### C ARNEAL 

### , Appellant

V


### . T HE 

### S T ATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEM ORANDUM OPINION Appellant Ross Will iams Carn eal appeals from the trial court ’ s judgment revoking h is community supervision , adjudicati ng his guilt for evading arrest with a
vehi cle , sentencing him to t en year s ’ confinement, and ordering him to pay $ 90 in

c ourt costs
. We modify the judgment to delete $15 of the total costs assessed because the amount repr esent s a fee that is not a statutorily authorized cost, and we affi rm the judgment a s modified. A gr and jury indicted Carneal for the offense of eva ding ar rest with a vehicle

. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04 . Under the terms of a plea

- bargai n agreement, Carneal pleaded guilty to the offense , and the tri al cour t def erred adjudicating his guilt

an d placed him on community supervision for six ye ars . The tri al court also imposed

a nonsu sp ended $ 1, 0 00 f ine, pursuant to the ter ms of the pl ea

- bargain a gr eement, and
assessed court costs in t he amount of $ 349

. D uring t he period o f Carneal ’ s community supervision, the State fil ed a motion

to proceed with an adjudic ation of gu il t. The State all eged that Carneal had violated
three conditions of his communi ty supervision: ( A

) committed a new off ense, (B) failed to report his arrest to his community supervisio n officer with in five days , and (C) failed to perfo rm his w eekly quota of community

- service hours from July
2017 to October 2018. Carneal pleaded “ not true ” to alleg ation s A and B and pleaded

“ true ” to a llegation C

. The trial court he ard evide nce regarding the State ’ s violation allegations, found all three alleg ations to be true, and adjud icated Carneal g uilty of the3 underl ying offense

. The trial court sentenced Carneal to t en yea rs ’ confinement

. The ju dgm ent adjudicating guilt orders Carne a l to pay $ 90 in court costs.
Carneal ’ s court

- appointed appellate coun se l has file d a motion to withdraw as
counsel an d a brief in sup port of that motion. Counsel’s bri ef and motion meet the requirements of Ander s v. California by presenti ng a professional evaluation of the
record d emo nstrat i ng why there are no arguable gro un ds for rel ief. See 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. C t. 1396 , 1400 (1 967). In compliance with Kelly v. State , counsel notified
Carneal of the motio n to withdraw, provided h im a copy of the brief , informed h im
of h is r igh t to f il e a pro se response, informed h im of h is pr o se right to seek discretionary rev iew should this c ourt hold that the appeal is fr ivol ous, and took
concrete measures to fac ilitat e Carneal ’ s review of the app ellate record

. 436 S.W .3d
31 3, 319 (Tex . Crim. App. 2 014). T his court af forded Carne al the opportunity to f ile a response on h is own behalf , but h e did not fi le a brief

. As the revi ewing court, we must conduct an independent evalua tion of the
record to determine whether counsel is correct in det ermining th at the ap peal is
frivo lous. See S tafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 51 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v.
State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion t o withdraw. See Penson v. O hio , 4 88 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 1 09 S. Ct.
346 , 351 (1988 )

.4 We have carefully reviewed counsel ’s brief and the record. After reviewing the
itemized b ill of cost s , 1 we conclude that there i s no stat utory authority authorizing the $15 assesse d for “ Motion to Proceed/Re voke Fee

. ” See Thiebaud , 201 9 WL 98 3747, at

* 2 . Beca use “ [o]n ly statutorily authorized court costs may be assessed against a

c r imina l de fend ant , ” we modi fy the judgm ent , the i ncorporat ed order to withdraw funds, and the bill of costs to delete this $ 15 fee, leaving total court costs of $ 75

. See Jo hnson v. State , 423 S.W.3d 385, 389 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) ; Th iebaud , 201 9 WL
98 3747, at * 2 ; Wrig ht v. State , No. 0 2

- 1 8

- 00 352

- CR, 20 1 9 WL 31 1 195 , at * 2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Jan. 24, 2 019 , no pe t.) (me m. op., not designated for publication ) ; see also Bray v. State , 179 S .W.3d 725, 726 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2005, no p et.) (en banc) (holding that an app ellate court has the author i ty to m odify a j udgment in

an Anders appeal). Except for this impro perly imp osed fee , we agree with cou nsel that th is appeal
is who lly frivolous and wit ho ut merit; we find n othing in t he record that arguably might suppo rt th e ap peal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S. W.3d 824, 8 27

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we gr ant couns el’s motion to withdraw and af firm as

1 Be cause Carneal did n ot appeal the order placing him on deferred

- adjudication community supervi sion , the $ 1,439 in costs and fi nes or iginally imposed in that order cannot now be ch allenged. See Wiley v. State , 410 S.W.3d 313, 320

– 21 (Tex. Crim. A p p. 2 01 3); Thieb aud v. S t at

e , No. 02

- 18

- 00173

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

— F ort Worth Feb. 28, 2 019, n o pet. ) (mem. op., n ot desig nated for pu blicat ion). We therefore limit our rev iew to only the $ 90 of court cos ts that were assessed in the judgmen t ad judicat ing guilt.5 m odified the tria l court’s judgment and the order to withdra w funds in corporate d

t herein

. Per Curiam
Do Not P ubli sh Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: October 24, 2019