COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-11-00539-CR
JOSHUA MICHAEL SMITH APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
----------
Joshua Michael Smith appeals the trial court’s judgment adjudicating him
guilty of possession of more than one gram of cocaine in a drug free zone and
sentencing him to seven years’ confinement.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel
avers that, in her professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
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, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). We gave
appellant an opportunity to file a pro se brief, but he has not done so. The State
has not filed 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, we
are 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. The record
shows that after the trial court adjudicated appellant’s guilt, it did not include in its
oral pronouncement of sentence any mention of reparations. Yet, after this
appeal was perfected, the trial court signed a nunc pro tunc order amending the
special findings section of the judgment to include the following: “reparations in
the amount of $2,836.00.” Because the trial court did not orally pronounce
reparations as part of appellant’s sentence, that special finding must be deleted
from the judgment. See Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 502 (Tex. Crim. App.
2004); Smith v. State, No. 02-11-00295-CR, 2012 WL 2036467, at *2 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth June 7, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
2
publication).
Except for the modification to the judgment described above, we agree
with counsel that the 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. We modify the judgment (as amended by the nunc pro tunc
order) to delete “reparations in the amount of $2,836.00.” We affirm the
remainder of the trial court’s judgment as modified.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: May 30, 2013
3