Court Opinion

ID: 9840342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-16 06:08:40.806167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.766507
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed September 14, 2023

                                      In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                   __________

                              No. 11-22-00293-CR
                                  __________

                        DANIEL MADRID, Appellant
                                         V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 244th District Court
                             Ector County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. C-19-0701-CR

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Appellant, Daniel Madrid, originally pled guilty to the state jail felony offense
of possession of a controlled substance, namely methamphetamine, in an amount of
less than one gram. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a), (b) (West
Supp. 2022). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement between Appellant and the
State, the trial court sentenced Appellant to two years of imprisonment in the State
Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) with a $550 fine,
suspended the imposition of confinement, and placed Appellant on community
supervision for three years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke
Appellant’s community supervision that alleged four violations of such supervision.
At the hearing on the State’s motion to revoke, Appellant pled “true” to all four of
the allegations. The trial court accepted Appellant’s pleas of “true” and permitted
the State and Appellant to present evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
trial court found that Appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his
community supervision as alleged in the State’s motion, revoked Appellant’s
community supervision, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for eighteen
months in the State Jail Division of TDCJ. We modify and affirm.
      Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to
withdraw as counsel on appeal. 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 frivolous and without merit.             Counsel provided
Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, and a copy of
both the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel also 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).
      Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following
the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed
the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit. We note that proof of one
violation of the terms and conditions of community supervision is sufficient to
support the trial court’s revocation of a defendant’s community supervision. See
Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). In this regard, a plea
                                            2
of true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to revoke. See
Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979).
Furthermore, absent a void judgment, issues relating to an original plea proceeding
may not be raised in a subsequent appeal from the revocation of community
supervision. Jordan v. State, 54 S.W.3d 783, 785–86 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
Based upon our review of the record, we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds
for appeal exist. 1
        However, we note that the judgment contains nonreversible errors. An
assessment for a third-party collection fee in the amount of $567 is included in the
court costs. Pursuant to Article 103.0031 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure,
a county’s commissioners court or a municipality’s governing body (a) may contract
with a third party to collect unpaid fines, fees, court costs, forfeited bonds,
restitution, and amounts related to a defendant’s failure to appear and (b) may
authorize the addition of a collection fee to the past due amounts owed by the
defendant. CRIM. PROC. art. 103.0031(a), (b) (West 2018). However, a defendant
that has been determined by the trial court to be indigent “is not liable for the
collection fees authorized under Subsection (b).” Id. art. 103.0031(d). The trial
court in this case determined that Appellant was indigent. Therefore, the trial court
erred when it assessed the third-party collection fee against Appellant at the
revocation proceeding. 2 We have the authority to modify the trial court’s judgment
to correctly show the trial court proceedings when we have the necessary

        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.
        2
         We note that the court costs in this case also included a court-appointed attorney’s fee of $800.
Unlike the third-party collection fee, the court-appointed attorney’s fee was included in the original
judgment of conviction, so we have not deleted it from the trial court’s judgment revoking Appellant’s
community supervision. See Riles v. State, 452 S.W.3d 333, 337 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (holding that the
defendant procedurally defaulted by failing to raise the attorney-fee issue in direct appeal from the initial
order); Wiley v. State, 410 S.W.3d 313, 320–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (same).
                                                     3
information to do so. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26,
27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment and
the district clerk’s bill of costs to delete the $567 third-party collection fee.
      Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment
of the trial court as modified.

                                                W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
                                                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.

                                            4