Court Opinion

ID: 9900738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-20 12:07:34.62351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:15.173401
License: Public Domain

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

          No. 02-23-00055-CR
     ___________________________

    JAMES ESTRADA, JR., Appellant

                    V.

         THE STATE OF TEXAS

  On Appeal from the 355th District Court
          Hood County, Texas
        Trial Court No. CR15544

 Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.
 Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant James Estrada, Jr.1 pleaded guilty to aggravated assault causing

serious bodily injury (using a deadly weapon) on a family member. Estrada elected to

have a jury assess punishment. Following a trial, the jury assessed a punishment of

sixty years in prison. The trial court sentenced Estrada accordingly. Estrada appealed

his conviction.

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

exist, Estrada’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). Estrada was given an

opportunity to file a response to counsel’s brief and motion, but he has not done so.

The State has also declined to file a response.

      1
       Throughout the clerk’s record, Estrada is referred to as either “James Estrada”
or “James Estrada, Jr.” We will use the name “Estrada.”

                                            2
      After carefully reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, with the exception of a

minor correction, we agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and

without merit. Our independent review of the record reveals nothing that might

arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 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 judgment purports to impose $400 in court costs and a “fine” of $100 on

Estrada, apparently under the authority of Article 42A.504(b) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42A.504(b). The bill of costs, which

includes $500 in court costs, indicates that $100 of these costs stem from a “Family

Shelter Fee”.

      According to the relevant article of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if a trial

court grants community supervision to a defendant convicted of an offense under

Title 5 of the Penal Code (which includes, as is applicable here, assaultive offenses),

and the trial court determines that the offense involves family violence, the trial court

must require the defendant to pay $100 to a family violence center that receives state

or federal funds and serves the county where the court is located. Tex. Code Crim.

Proc. Ann. art. 42A.504(b). Although Estrada’s offense was committed against a

family member, he was neither placed on community supervision for that offense, nor

was he serving under a community supervision order that was revoked when he

committed the current offense. Cf. Guajardo v. State, No. 04-17-00421-CR, 2018 WL

                                           3
3129452, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 27, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not

designated for publication) (holding imposition of family violence fee against

defendant was proper where he had previously been placed on community

supervision for a family violence offense and that supervision was revoked).

Accordingly, we delete the $100 “fine” from the judgment and the $100 “Family

Shelter Fee” from the bill of costs. We also delete $100 from the order to withdraw

funds, leaving Estrada with an outstanding balance of $400.

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

modified.

                                                    /s/ Dana Womack

                                                    Dana Womack
                                                    Justice

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

Delivered: November 16, 2023

                                          4