Court Opinion

ID: 9840326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-16 06:08:27.944034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:30:26.897090
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed September 14, 2023

                                     In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                   ___________

                              No. 11-22-00244-CR
                                   ___________

                ZACHARIA LAMONT JONES, Appellant
                                       V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 244th District Court
                             Ector County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. C-21-0726-CR

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      The jury convicted Appellant, Zacharia Lamont Jones, of the third-degree
felony offense of continuous violence against the family. See TEX. PENAL CODE
ANN. § 25.11(a), (e) (West Supp. 2022). Appellant pled “true” to the State’s three
enhancement allegations. The jury found the enhancement allegations to be “true”
and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for thirty-five years in the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The trial court sentenced him accordingly.
We affirm.
      Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to
withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the
appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Counsel provided Appellant with a
copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy
of both the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of
his right to review the record and file a response and of his right to file a petition for
discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking
review by that court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Court-appointed counsel has complied
with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State,
436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
      In his brief, Appellant’s counsel states that the trial court improperly assessed
court costs against Appellant because he is indigent, and no inquiry was made
regarding his ability to pay. A convicted defendant must pay legislatively mandated
court costs, and a defendant’s ability to pay is not relevant with respect to such costs.
Amparan v. State, No. 11-21-00162-CR, 2022 WL 17684377, at *4 (Tex. App.—
Eastland Dec. 15, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see
Allen v. State, 426 S.W.3d 253, 258 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, no pet.);
Williams v. State, 332 S.W.3d 694, 700 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011, pet. denied).
As a result, the trial court properly assessed the legislatively mandated court costs
applicable to Appellant’s felony conviction against him. Amparan, 2022 WL
17684377, at *4; see TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 133.102(a)(1), 134.101(a)
(West 2021).
      Appellant has not filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the
procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the

                                            2
record, and we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.1 Accordingly,
we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                         JOHN M. BAILEY
                                                         CHIEF JUSTICE

September 14, 2023
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

        1
         We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68
of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

                                                    3