Court Opinion

ID: 9914417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-01 11:06:34.596661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:12:25.393334
License: Public Domain

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

          No. 02-23-00087-CR
     ___________________________

   SCOTT EDWIN GRAVES, Appellant

                    V.

         THE STATE OF TEXAS

  On Appeal from the 355th District Court
          Hood County, Texas
        Trial Court No. CR14573

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

      Scott Edwin Graves pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault that

occurred during the same criminal episode––one count was for threatening the

complainant with a deadly weapon, and the other count was for inflicting serious

bodily injury on a different complainant.1 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a)(1)–(2).

After hearing evidence related to both guilt and punishment, a jury found Graves

guilty on both counts and assessed his punishment for each of them at 16 years’

confinement and a $5,000 fine.       The trial court sentenced Graves accordingly,

ordering the sentences to run concurrently. Graves did not object to the assessed

punishment.

      Graves’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as

counsel and a brief in support of that motion, in which he avers that, in his

professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the

      1
        The record shows that Graves entered into a charge bargain with the State; in
exchange for his guilty pleas, the State waived four enhancement paragraphs and
agreed not to prosecute Graves for two pending bail-jumping charges. See Kennedy v.
State, 297 S.W.3d 338, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Harper v. State, 567 S.W.3d 450,
454–55 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2019, no pet.). Although the trial court’s
certification of Graves’s right to appeal incorrectly reflects that this is not a plea-
bargain case, we construe the trial judge’s remarks on the record as indicating an
intent to give Graves permission to appeal. The trial judge stated on the record that
he had checked the box “that says you do have the right to appeal regardless of
whatever verdict comes out in this case.” And at the beginning of trial, the judge had
admonished Graves that only his right to appeal his admission of guilt would be
limited. Therefore, we conclude that the trial judge impliedly gave Graves permission
to appeal. See Taylor v. State, No. 02-21-00208-CR, 2023 WL 3370723, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth May 11, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

                                          2
requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967),

by professionally evaluating the appellate record and demonstrating why no arguable

grounds for relief exist. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510–11 & n.3 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991). Counsel also complied with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2014).

      This court gave Graves the opportunity to file a response on his own behalf,

but he did not do so. Likewise, the State did not file a response.

      After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the

ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills Anders’s requirements, we must

independently examine the record for any arguable ground that may be raised on his

behalf. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

      We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the appellate record. We agree

with counsel that––but for a minor modification to the judgment for an improperly

assessed cost––the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in

the appellate record that otherwise arguably might 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).

      Only the judgment for Count One assesses costs; the total is $535. The bill of

costs in the clerk’s record generally shows the assessment of costs applicable on the

offense date––May 24, 2019.       However, also included is a $25 assessment for

                                           3
“Specialty Court Account – Local CCC.” That cost may be assessed only for offenses

occurring on or after January 1, 2020. See Act of May 23, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S.,

ch. 1352, §§ 5.01, 5.04, 2019 Tex. Gen. Laws 3981, 3983, 3985–86, 4035.

Accordingly, we modify the judgment to delete the assessment of that $25 cost. See

French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); see also Tex. R. App.

P. 43.2(b).

       Having found that the appeal is frivolous, we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw. We affirm the trial court’s judgment for Count Two in all respects. We

modify the trial court’s judgment for Count One to reflect total Court Costs of $510,

and we modify the Order to Withdraw Funds attached as Attachment A to show that

“[c]ourt costs, fees[,] and/or fines and/or restitution have been incurred in the

amount of $5[,]510” and to authorize withdrawal only up to that amount. We affirm

the judgment for Count One as modified.

                                                    /s/ Brian Walker

                                                    Brian Walker
                                                    Justice

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

Delivered: December 28, 2023

                                          4