Court Opinion

ID: 9406693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-03 10:08:23.190844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:32.526551
License: Public Domain

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

          No. 02-22-00290-CR
     ___________________________

MICHAEL ANTHONY CORTEZ, Appellant

                    V.

         THE STATE OF TEXAS

  On Appeal from the 355th District Court
          Hood County, Texas
        Trial Court No. CR13971

  Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.
  Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel
                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant Michael Anthony Cortez pleaded guilty to sexual assault of a child

and received ten years of deferred adjudication community supervision and a $1,500

fine. The State later filed a petition to adjudicate guilt. Cortez pleaded true to the

allegations contained in the petition.    After a hearing, the trial court assessed a

sentence of eighteen years in prison. Cortez appeals his conviction.

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

exist, Cortez’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). Cortez has not filed a

response on his own behalf. The State also declined to file a response.

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

minor correction to the trial court’s judgment, we agree with counsel that this appeal

is wholly frivolous and without merit. Our independent review of the record reveals

nothing further that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

                                           2
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 bill of costs shows that the $200.82 remaining is from the original $1,500

fine that was assessed at deferred adjudication. The judgment adjudicating guilt

assesses $200.82 as “court costs,” and notes that the trial court assessed a fine of

$1,500 at deferred adjudication.      However, no fine was pronounced at the

adjudication of guilt. See Ette v. State, 559 S.W.3d 511, 513, 515 (Tex. Crim. App.

2018) (stating general rule that fines must be orally pronounced in the defendant’s

presence); Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 500, 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (stating

that when deferred-adjudication community supervision is revoked and guilt

adjudicated, the order adjudicating guilt sets aside the deferred-adjudication order,

including any previously imposed fine). Accordingly, we delete the $200.82 cost from

the judgment, order to withdraw funds, and bill of costs.

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

modified.

                                                     /s/ Dabney Bassel

                                                     Dabney Bassel
                                                     Justice

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

Delivered: June 29, 2023

                                          3