History
  • No items yet
midpage
Gerardo Alonzo Lopez v. the State of Texas
11-19-00027-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 8, 2021
|
Check Treatment
Case Information

*1 Opinion filed July 8, 2021

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-19-00027-CR

___________ GERARDO ALONZO LOPEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 244th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-18-1149-CR

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N O N R E M A N D

Based upon an open plea of guilty, the trial court convicted Appellant of felony driving while intoxicated. After a hearing on punishment, the trial court

assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement for five years and a fine of $500. We modify the trial court’s judgment and affirm as modified.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that this appeal is frivolous *2 and without merit. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, a copy of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and an explanatory letter. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review in order to seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 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 response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. [1] We note, however, that the judgment contains a nonreversible error. In the judgment, the trial court ordered Appellant to pay court costs, including a Time Payment Fee of $25. In light of the recent opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals in , we conclude that the time payment fee must be struck in its entirety as prematurely assessed. See Dulin v. State , 620 S.W.3d 129, 133 & n.29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). When the trial court erroneously includes fees as court costs, we should modify the trial court’s judgment to remove the improperly assessed fees. Cates v. State , 402 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment and the bill of cost to delete the time payment fee of $25, without prejudice to a time payment fee being assessed later “if, more than 30 days after the issuance of the appellate mandate, [Appellant] *3 has failed to completely pay any fine, court costs, or restitution that he owes.” , 620 S.W.3d at 133.

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw; modify the judgment of the trial court as set forth above; and, as modified, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

PER CURIAM July 8, 2021

Do not publish. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

[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.

Case Details

Case Name: Gerardo Alonzo Lopez v. the State of Texas
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas
Date Published: Jul 8, 2021
Docket Number: 11-19-00027-CR
Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.
Read the detailed case summary
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.