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

___________________________ No. 02

- 20

- 001 24

- CR

_______________ ______ ______

On Appeal from the 415th Distr ict Court Parker Coun ty, Te xas Tria l Court No. CR18

- 0617
Before Bassel, Birdwell, and Womack, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### I SMAEL 

### P EREDA 

### , Appellant

V


### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMOR ANDUM OPINION
A ppellant Ismael Pereda appeals from the trial court ’ s judgment revoking his community supervis ion and sent enc ing him to twenty

- four months ’ c onfinement. After reviewing Pereda ’ s court

- app oin ted counsel ’ s Anders brief and conducting an
i ndep endent review of the record, we modify the judgment to delete $25 of court costs that are associated with the time

- paymen t f ee, and we affirm the judgment as modified

. Under the terms of a plea bargain , Pereda plea ded guilty to the offense of possession of less than one gram of metha mphetamine

. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 4 81.115

. Pursuant t o the ter ms of th e plea barga in , t he tria l court found Pereda guilty , sentenced him to twenty

- four months in state jail , sus pended the

sentence , and placed hi m on community supervisi on for five years

. The trial court also imposed a nonsuspended $1,00 0 f ine

. Duri ng the period of Pereda ’ s community supervision, the State filed a petition to revok e. The State alleged that P ereda had violated five conditions of h is
communit y supervision: ( d ) he failed to timely report to a commu nity

- super vision officer in January , Febr uary, and March 2020; 1 ( m ) he failed to make timely payments

1 During the hearing on the State ’ s motion to revoke , the prosecu tor asked Pereda ’s community

- su p er vision officer , “And , of course , we ha d him stop reporting come January 2020? ” Pereda ’ s community

- supervision officer state d , “Correct

. ” It is unclear if th e prosecutor m eant to say April 2020, which would have fallen within the time f rame of the COVID

- 19 pandemic and would have correspon ded with the fac t that the dates alle ged in the motion t o revoke stopped in March 2 020

. Nevertheless,3 toward his court costs, fine, and restitution for May through December 2019 and Januar y through March 2020; ( n

) he failed to timely pay his community

- supe rvision f

ee for May throug h Se ptember 2019 and December 201 9 through March 2020; ( o ) he failed to participate in a communi ty

- based progr am ; an d ( ff ) he fail ed to attend , participate in, an d succ essfully complete a TCADA

- approved Drug O ffender Education Program.
P ur suant to Pereda ’ s written adm onish ments, he jud icially confessed to committing the violations of communi ty supervision conta ined in the State ’ s m otion

to r evoke and state d that al l of the allegations conta ined in the motion are true and

correct. The tr ial court foun d the allegations to be true, revoked Pered a ’ s community supervision, and “ impose[d] the senten ce previ ously set forth in the judgment

. ” The judgment ref lects that the trial court assessed a $1,000 u npaid fine 2 and $334 in court
Pereda pleaded true to the allegations in the motion to revoke. See Tapia v. State , 462 S.W.3d 29, 31 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (stat ing that plea of “ true,” standing alone, suffices to s upport the revocation of community supervi si on ). Moreover, e ven if Pereda was no t required to report during the first three months of 2020, the revocation order is still supported by at least one viola tion as the record contains evidence to support the re m aining four alleged violations. See Smit h v. State , 286 S.W.3d 33 3, 342 (Tex. C r im. App. 2009) (holding th at one sufficient ground supports a trial court ’s revocation or der )

.
2 Although the trial cou rt did not orally pr onounce the fine at the revocation h earing, a fine is intended to be a part of the sent ence, and th e trial court sta ted that it was “ impos [ing ] the sentence previ ously set forth in the judgment

. ” See H o w ard v. State, No. 06

- 19

- 0016 6

- CR, 2019 WL 6334709, a t *1 (Tex. App.

— Te xarkana Nov. 27, 2 019, no pet.) (mem. op., not des ignated for publication) (stating that “ fines are punitive and [are] intended to be a part of the defendant ’ s sentence ” ). Moreover, even assuming that the pron ouncement ’ s wording did not include the fine, the trial4 costs. The re cord includes an order to withdraw funds from Pereda ’ s inmate trust
account, and t hat document reflect s that $1,334 is to be withdrawn. Pereda ’ s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to wit h draw as co unsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel avers that, in h is
p rofessional opini on, this appea l is f rivolous. Counsel ’ s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744

– 45, 87 S. Ct. 139 6 , 1400 (19 67), by presenting a professional evaluation of the appellate record demonstrating why

t here are no argua ble grounds fo r rel i ef. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2 d 503, 510

– 11 & n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In compliance with Kelly v. State , coun s el (1) not ified Pereda of h is motion to withdr aw; (2) provided him a copy of both the motion and t he brief; (3) inf ormed him of h is rig h t to file a pro se response; (4) informe d him of his pro se right to seek discretionary review should thi s court hold th e appeal fri volous; and (5) took concrete

measures to facilitate his review of the appellate recor d. See 436 S .W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim . App. 2014). T his court afforded Pereda the opportunity to file a response on his own behalf, but he di d not do so. After an appellant ’ s court

- appointed counsel fil es a motion to wi thdraw on the ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirement s of Anders , this court is

court ha d orally pronounced the fine at the original plea hearing; thus, it may be properly included in the judgment revoking community supervision without further oral pronouncement

. See id. (citing Coffe y v. State , 979 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)).5 obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to see i f there is any arguable ground that may be raised on his behalf

. See Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 511.
O nly then may we grant counsel ’ s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. O hio , 488 U.S. 75,
82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed counsel ’ s brief and the appellate record and have determined that the trial court ’ s ju dgment require s modi fication regarding the assessment of a $25 time

- payment fee included as part of the $334 court co sts. T he Tex as Court of Criminal Appeals recently issued an opinion concluding that a trial

court ’ s assessment of the $25 time

- paymen t fee while an appeal is pending is premature. Dulin v. S t ate , 620 S.W.3d 129, 133 (Tex. Crim. A p p . 202 1)

. As such, the $25 time

- paym ent fee should be entirely struck, without preju dice to the fee being assessed later if, more than thirty days afte r the issuance of th e appellate mandate, Pereda has failed to completely pay any fine, court costs, or restitution that he owes. See id. ; We bster v. State , No. 07

- 20

- 00248

- CR, 2021 W L 1899 359, at * 5 (Tex. A p p.

— Amarill o May 11, 2021, no pe t. h.) (mem. op ., not d esignated fo r publication) (applying Dulin to modify judgment to delete time

- payment fee assessed in a community

- supervision revocation case)

. Except for this necess ary modification t o the judgment and t o the order to withdraw funds from Pereda ’ s inm ate tr ust account, w e agree w ith counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit ; we find nothing in the app ellate record
th at arguably might support this appeal. See Bledso e v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 286 (Tex. Crim. App . 2005); see also Meza v. State , 20 6 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel ’ s motion to withdraw and aff irm as modified th e trial co urt ’ s judgm ent and the order to withdr aw funds f rom Pereda ’ s inmate trust account

. Per Curiam
Do Not P ublish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered: July 15, 2021