Steven Curtis Marez, Jr. v. the State of Texas

In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-20-00132-CR ___________________________

STEVEN CURTIS MAREZ, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 355th District Court

Hood County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR13859

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Wallach and Walker, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Steven Curtis Marez, Jr. appeals his conviction and 15-year sentence for aggravated assault. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02. Appellant had been placed on deferred adjudication community supervision, but he pleaded true to violating the terms of his community supervision, and the trial court adjudicated him guilty.

On appeal from his conviction, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion, in which counsel has determined, after examining the appellate record, that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders, which requires presenting a professional evaluation of the entire record in the case demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. Id., 87 S. Ct. at 1400. We have independently examined the record, as is our duty upon the filing of an Anders brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). Although provided the opportunity to seek a copy of the appellate record and file a pro se response, appellant declined to do so. Likewise, the State did not file a response to the Anders brief.

After carefully reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we have determined that $15 should be deleted from the total court costs imposed in the judgment. No statute authorizes the imposition of a $15 Motion to Proceed/Revoke Fee.1 Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385, 389 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (“Only statutorily authorized court costs may be assessed against a criminal defendant.”). We therefore modify the judgment and incorporated funds-withdrawal order to delete $15 from the $396 in court costs, so that each imposes a total of only $381 in court costs.2 Except for this modification to the judgment and incorporated funds- withdrawal order, we agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Our independent review of the record reveals nothing further 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). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, modify the trial court’s judgment and incorporated funds-withdrawal order to impose only $381 in court costs, and affirm the judgment as modified. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725, 729 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth 2005, no pet.).

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: October 14, 2021