In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-19-00146-CR
___________________________
DAVID EUGENE ETHRIDGE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 355th District Court
Hood County, Texas
Trial Court No. CR12378
Before Birdwell, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Wallach, J.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
David Eugene Ethridge appeals from a judgment revoking his community
supervision and sentencing him to ten years’ confinement.1 Ethridge stipulated
verbally and in writing that all of the allegations in the State’s motion to revoke were
true and that he had “nothing to say to the Court as to why” the judge “should
not . . . pronounce[]” his sentence. We affirm.
Ethridge’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw
and a brief under Anders v. California, representing that this case presents no
nonfrivolous grounds for appeal. 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967).
Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a
professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable
grounds for relief. See id.; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008) (orig. proceeding). Counsel also complied with the requirements set forth in
Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 & n.22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Although
counsel provided Ethridge with a copy of the appellate record and this court provided
him an opportunity to respond to the Anders brief, Ethridge did not do so. Likewise,
the State has not filed a brief.
Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the
ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we must
The trial court had first placed Ethridge on deferred adjudication, but it later
1
adjudicated Ethridge guilty, suspended the imposition of sentence, and placed him on
community supervision.
2
independently examine the record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1991). 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. After reviewing the itemized bill of
costs, we conclude that there is no statutory authority authorizing the $15 assessed for
“Motion to Proceed/Revoke Fee” in connection with the December 2018 motion to
revoke community supervision. 2 See Thiebaud v. State, No. 02-18-00173-CR, 2019 WL
983747, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 28, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication) (explaining that no criminal statute authorizes imposition
of such filing fees). Nor is there anything in the record explaining the $1 discrepancy
between the $143.62 in court costs imposed in the judgment (and the incorporated
order to withdraw funds) and the $142.62 itemized in the bill of costs. Because “[o]nly
statutorily authorized court costs may be assessed against a criminal defendant,” we
modify the judgment, the incorporated order to withdraw funds, and the bill of costs
to delete the $15 “Motion to Proceed/Revoke Fee” and the additional $1.00 not
supported by the record, leaving total court costs of $127.62. See Johnson v. State, 423
S.W.3d 385, 389 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Thiebaud, 2019 WL 983747, at *2; see also Bray
v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725, 726 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (en banc)
2
The trial court also included this $15 fee in its prior order adjudicating
Ethridge delinquent and placing him on community supervision, but he cannot now
challenge the imposition of that fee. See Wiley v. State, 410 S.W.3d 313, 320–21 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2013).
3
(holding that an appellate court has the authority to modify a judgment in an Anders
appeal).
Except for the improperly imposed fee and $1.00 discrepancy in the court
costs, we agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we
find nothing in the record that arguably might support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State,
178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw and affirm as modified the trial court’s judgment and
incorporated order to withdraw funds.
Per Curiam
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: November 7, 2019
4