COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-13-00596-CR
JARROD WAYNE COX APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. CR11976
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
----------
Appellant Jarrod Wayne Cox appeals the trial court’s judgment
adjudicating him guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentencing
him to twenty-five years’ confinement. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.32 (West
2011), § 22.021 (West 2011 & Supp. 2014). Cox’s court-appointed appellate
counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v.
California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating
why there are no arguable grounds for relief. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396
(1967). Cox had the opportunity to file a pro se brief but did not do so. The State
did not file a brief.
Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on
the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this
court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. 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.). 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 the record and counsel’s brief and have
determined that the trial court’s judgment requires correction with regard to the
assessment of a $1,223 fine in the judgment adjudicating guilt and the order to
withdraw funds from Cox’s inmate trust account, which was incorporated by
reference into the judgment. We may modify the judgment in an Anders appeal
and affirm the judgment as modified. Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725, 726 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (en banc).
The trial court did not assess a fine during its oral pronouncement of Cox’s
sentence, but the judgment adjudicating guilt includes a $1,223 fine, and the
February 19, 2014 bill of costs prepared by the Hood County District Clerk
2
reflects that Cox owed $1,223 of a $1,500 fine. 2 When guilt is adjudicated upon
a violation of a condition of community supervision, the order adjudicating guilt
sets aside the order deferring adjudication, including any previously imposed
fines. Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 501–02 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)
(reasoning that appellant was not sentenced until his guilt was adjudicated and
that the trial court was required to orally pronounce fine during sentencing); see
also Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (noting
that fines are punitive). And when the oral pronouncement of sentence and the
written judgment vary, the oral pronouncement controls. Taylor, 131 S.W.3d at
500, 502. Because the trial court did not include the fine previously assessed in
its order deferring adjudication in its oral pronouncement of sentence at the
revocation hearing, we modify the judgment adjudicating guilt to delete the
$1,223 fine, which must also be removed from the bill of costs and the order to
withdraw funds from Cox’s inmate trust account. See id. at 502; see also
Washington v. State, No. 02-11-00152-CR, 2012 WL 1345743, at *1–2 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth Apr. 19, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication) (reforming judgment adjudicating guilt to delete fine not included in
oral pronouncement of sentence); Boyd v. State, No. 02-11-00035-CR, 2012 WL
2
The original order of deferred adjudication reflected that Cox pled guilty in
exchange for eight years’ deferred adjudication community supervision and a
$1,500 fine.
3
1345751, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 19, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication) (same).
Except for this necessary modification to the judgment, we agree with
counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing else
in the record 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). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified.
/s/ Lee Gabriel
LEE GABRIEL
JUSTICE
PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: February 26, 2015
4