Michael Anthony Cortez v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-22-00290-CR
___________________________
MICHAEL ANTHONY CORTEZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 355th District Court
Hood County, Texas
Trial Court No. CR13971
Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Michael Anthony Cortez pleaded guilty to sexual assault of a child
and received ten years of deferred adjudication community supervision and a $1,500
fine. The State later filed a petition to adjudicate guilt. Cortez pleaded true to the
allegations contained in the petition. After a hearing, the trial court assessed a
sentence of eighteen years in prison. Cortez appeals his conviction.
After reviewing the record and concluding that no arguable grounds for appeal
exist, Cortez’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel and a brief in support of that motion. 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; counsel has presented a professional evaluation of the entire
record 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); Mays
v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.); see also Penson
v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). Cortez has not filed a
response on his own behalf. The State also declined to file a response.
After carefully reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, with the exception of a
minor correction to the trial court’s judgment, 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
2
824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6
(Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
The trial court’s judgment does, however, require modification regarding court
costs. The bill of costs shows that the $200.82 remaining is from the original $1,500
fine that was assessed at deferred adjudication. The judgment adjudicating guilt
assesses $200.82 as “court costs,” and notes that the trial court assessed a fine of
$1,500 at deferred adjudication. However, no fine was pronounced at the
adjudication of guilt. See Ette v. State, 559 S.W.3d 511, 513, 515 (Tex. Crim. App.
2018) (stating general rule that fines must be orally pronounced in the defendant’s
presence); Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 500, 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (stating
that when deferred-adjudication community supervision is revoked and guilt
adjudicated, the order adjudicating guilt sets aside the deferred-adjudication order,
including any previously imposed fine). Accordingly, we delete the $200.82 cost from
the judgment, order to withdraw funds, and bill of costs.
We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment as
modified.
/s/ Dabney Bassel
Dabney Bassel
Justice
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: June 29, 2023
3