Court Opinion

ID: 9895172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-05 07:10:52.297339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:30.845475
License: Public Domain

Affirmed as modified and Memorandum Opinion filed October 31, 2023.

                                      In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                              NO. 14-22-00158-CR

                        DENNIS JACKSON, Appellant

                                        V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 174th District Court
                           Harris County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. 1606665

                 MEMORANDUM                      OPINION

      Appellant appeals his conviction for possession with intent to deliver at least
one gram and less than four grams of a controlled substance in violation of Texas
Health & Safety Code § 481.112(c). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in
which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief
meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting
a professional evaluation of the record and by indicating why there are no arguable
grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1978).

      A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised
of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford
v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Although appellant has
received a copy of the record, he has not filed a pro se response.

      There are two minor issues regarding court costs that this court has noted in
its own review of the record, though they do not otherwise warrant reversing
appellant’s conviction or otherwise modifying his sentence, nor do they require the
assistance of counsel to resolve. See Robison v. State, Nos. 14-19-00957-CR & 14-
19-00982-CR, 2020 WL 5198338, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 1,
2020, no pet.) (citing Ferguson v. State, 435 S.W.3d 291, 295 (Tex. App.—Waco
2014, no pet.) (acknowledging that courts are “not required to abate [an Anders]
appeal for appointment of new counsel if the judgment may be modified”); Bray v.
State, 179 S.W.3d 725, 729 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (declining to
abate an appeal for appointment of new counsel to raise an issue the appeals court
had already ruled on, deeming such to be a “useless task”). Appellant’s sentence
included being assessed $290.00 in consolidated court costs, reflecting $185.00 in
costs payable to the state comptroller, see Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code Ann.
§ 133.102(a)(1), and $105.00 payable to local government, see id. § 134.101(a). The
underlying statutes only support those costs for offenses committed on or after
January 1, 2020. Id. § 133.102(c) (effective Jan. 1, 2020); Authorlee v. State, No.
14-20-00821-CR, 2022 WL 220267, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan.
25, 2022, pet. ref’d). The evidence presented in the trial court was unequivocal that
appellant’s offense was committed in 2018. Accordingly, as the applicable statute
for state-payable costs only would make appellant liable for $133.00 in costs, while
no statute applies to make appellant liable for local-payable costs for offenses

                                          2
committed in 2018, we will modify the judgment and its accompanying bill of cost
to reflect appellant is liable for only $133.00 in court costs payable to the state
comptroller.

      We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the
appeal is otherwise wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no
reversible error in the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised
in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no
arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005).

      The judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modified.

                                  PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Poissant.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

                                         3