Keith Bechurn Taylor v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-23-00232-CR
KEITH BECHURN TAYLOR, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 124th District Court
Gregg County, Texas
Trial Court No. 49013-B
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On December 5, 2019, Keith Bechurn Taylor pled guilty to family violence assault with a
previous conviction. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(b)(2)(A) (Supp.). The trial court
deferred a finding of guilt and placed Taylor on community supervision. On November 13,
2023, the trial court adjudicated Taylor guilty of that offense. Taylor was sentenced to five
years’ confinement. Taylor appeals.
Taylor’s attorney filed a brief stating that she reviewed the record and found no genuinely
arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural history of the
case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings. Since counsel
provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable
grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of Anders v. California. Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel
also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
On May 28, 2024, counsel mailed copies of the following to Taylor: (1) her Anders brief,
(2) her motion to withdraw, and (3) a motion for pro se access to the appellate record lacking
only Taylor’s signature and the date. Counsel also advised Taylor that he had until June 12 to
mail the motion for pro se access back to this Court. On May 28, this Court advised Taylor that
his pro se motion for access to the record was “due on or before Thursday, June 13, 2024.” We
did not receive that pro se motion. On June 25, 2024, we notified Taylor that the case had been
2
set for submission on July 16, 2024. We received neither a pro se response from Taylor nor a
motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response. We have reviewed the
entire appellate record and have independently determined that no reversible error exists. See
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
We have also reviewed the certified bill of costs with total costs of $379.00. “Only
statutorily authorized court costs may be assessed against a criminal defendant . . . .” Johnson v.
State, 423 S.W.3d 385, 389 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.
103.002). On appeal, “we review the assessment of court costs . . . to determine if there is a
basis for the cost.” Id. at 390.
Of the $379.00 amount, the $25.00 “DC-Time Payment Fee” is not authorized. The
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has recently concluded that a time payment fee like the one
imposed here “must indeed be struck for being prematurely assessed because a defendant’s
appeal suspends the duty to pay court costs and therefore suspends the running of the clock for
the purposes of the time payment fee.” Dulin v. State, 620 S.W.3d 129, 129 (Tex. Crim. App.
2021). “As a consequence, even now, assessment of the time payment fee in this case would be
premature because appellate proceedings are still pending.” Id. Pursuant to Dulin, we strike the
time payment fee “in [its] entirety, without prejudice to [it] being assessed later if, more than 30
days after the issuance of the appellate mandate, the defendant has failed to completely pay any
fine, court costs, or restitution” owed. Id. at 133.
3
We strike “DC - Time Payment Fee” of $25.00 from the bill of costs. We also modify
the judgment adjudicating guilt by changing “Court Costs: $379.00” to “Court Costs: $354.00.”
As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.1
Scott E. Stevens
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: July 16, 2024
Date Decided: September 5, 2024
Do Not Publish
1
Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s
request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute
counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se
petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from
either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court,
see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP.
P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see
TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
4