## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 21

- 00024

- CR

BRYAN SETH WILLIAMS , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 188th District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 48328

- A

Befo re Morriss, C.J., Stevens and van Cleef , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Stevens2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

A trial court found Bryan Seth Williams guilty of aggravated assault , a second

- degree felony. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 22.0 2 ( a )(2 ) (Supp.)

. Aft er a bench trial on punishment,
Williams w as sentenced to six years’ i mprisonment

. Williams appeals. 1
Williams ’s attorney has filed a brief which states that s he has reviewed the record and has found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on ap peal. The brief sets out the procedural history of the case and summarizes the e vidence elicited during the course of the trial

court proceedings. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California , counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the r ecord demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be
advanced. Anders v. Ca lifornia , 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. A pp. 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 September 24, 2021 , counsel mailed to Williams copies of the brief, the motion to
withdraw , and a motion for pro se access to the record lacking only W il liams’s signature

. Williams was informed of his rights to review the record and file a pro se response. This Court granted Williams’s motion for pro se access to the appellate record , which was mailed to
Williams on December 7. We also granted William s’ s motion for an extension of time to file his pro se brief and, b y letter dated March 1, 2022, informed Williams that any pro se response was
due on or before March 31

. T hi s Court further extended the deadline fo r Williams to file a pro se

1 W i lliams also appeals his conviction for family violence assault with a prior con viction for family violence assault in companion cause number 06

- 21

- 0002 3

- CR.3 response to May 1 and informed him t hat further extensions would not be granted. On May 16,
this Court notified Williams that the case would be set for submission on the briefs on June 6

. W hile we received lett ers f rom Willia m s , we did not receive a pro se response. 2

W e have reviewed the entire appellate record and have independently determined that no
reversible error ex ists. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). However, non

- rever sible error i s found in the amount of court costs impose d

. T he clerk’s bill of costs in this case totaled $249.00, but the trial court’s judgment
ordered William s to pay $394.00 in court costs. Because the amount of court co sts contained in the judgment i s n ot suppor t e d by the bill of costs, it must be modifie d. Also, t h e bill of costs includes a $25.00 time payment fee, which was incorporated in the trial court ’s judgment. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has recently concluded that a time payment fe e l ike the o n e imposed here “must indeed be struck for b eing 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 1 2 9 , 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). “As a conse quence, even now, assessment of the time payment fee in this case would be premature because appellate pr oceedings are still pending.” Id

. This Court has the authority to modify incorrect judgments wh en it has t he information necessary to do so. See T E X

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State , 865 S.W.2d 26, 27

– 28 (Tex.

2 In an April 7 lette r , William s compl ain s that he w a s not given a copy of the Anders brief. How e ver, his counsel’s September 24, 2021, correspondence demonstrate s that she sen t Williams a copy of the Anders brief, label ed “Opening Brief on Behalf of Appellant,” in the same package as the mo tio n for pro s e access to the appellate record, which Willia m s clearly received. This Court also r eceived counsel’s assurances that she ma iled the bri ef to Williams a second tim e.4 Crim. App. 1993); Rhoten v. State , 299 S.W.3d 349, 3 56 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2009, no pet.).
Pursuant to Dulin , we strike the time pa yme nt fee “ i n [its] entirety, without prejudice to [it] being assessed later if, more than 30 days after the issuance of the appellate man date, the de fendant has
failed to co mpletely pay any fine, court costs, or restitution” owed. Dulin , 620 S.W.3d at 1 33.
We mod i f y the bill of costs and judgment by deleti n g the time payment fee and to reflect
that the amount of court costs owed is $22 4 .00

. As mod ified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 3

Scott E. Stevens Justice
Date Submitted: Jun e 6 , 202 2 D a te Decided: June 7 , 2022
Do Not Publish

3 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance wit h Anders , grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellan t in this case. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. No s ubstitute counsel will be appoint ed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court
o f Crimin al Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for dis cretionary review or file a pro se petition for di scretionary review. Any petitio n for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date o f this o pinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled b y this Court, see T EX

. R

. A PP

. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Te xas Court of Criminal Appeals, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with th e requir ements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,
see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4.