David Edward Wood v. State

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
DAVID E. WOOD, § No. 08-20-00108-CR
Appellant, § Appeal from the
v. § 358th District Court
THE STATE OF TEXAS, § of Ector County, Texas1
Appellee. § (TC# D-17-1993-CR)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
David Wood has filed an appeal from an order revoking his community supervision and
adjudicating him guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child. We modify the judgment to delete
certain improperly assessed fees and affirm the judgment as modified.
I. FRIVOLOUS APPEAL
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 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
1
We hear this case on transfer from the Eleventh Court of Appeals. See TEX.R.APP.P. 41.3
1
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. See TEX.R.APP.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) (en banc).
After carefully reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we find no reversible error that
might arguably support the appeal, and accordingly, we conclude that the appeal is wholly
frivolous and without merit. However, although there is no reversible error on this record, in
accordance with the practice of the transferor court, we must review the fees assessed in this case
and modify the judgment in the event certain fees were improperly assessed. See Hutson v. State,
No. 11-19-00037-CR, 2019 WL 4316864 (Tex.App.--Eastland Sept. 12, 2019, pet. filed)
(per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (striking certain fees from a trial court
judgment in an Anders appeal); Vinyard v. State, No. 08-19-00169-CR, 2020 WL 5056517(Tex.App.--El Paso Aug. 27, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (modifying
judgment to strike certain fees in accordance with Hutson and affirming the judgment as modified
in an Anders case transferred to this Court from the Eastland Court of Appeals).
Here, the order of adjudication references $2,000 in fines owed under the terms of the
deferred adjudication order, along with $815 in court costs,2 $260 in restitution to the Ector County
Adult Probation Department, and $80 in reimbursement fees. However, the $260 restitution award
is not enforceable because the trial court may only order a defendant sentenced to imprisonment
to pay restitution to a victim of the offense or to a crime victim’s assistance fund, not to an agency
2
The $2,815 amount of fines and court costs is the amount identified as remaining outstanding from the original
March 18, 2019, deferred adjudication order.
2
of the State of Texas. See Hutson, 2019 WL 4316864, at *2.
Further, the March 19, 2019, deferred adjudication order contains a special finding
requiring Appellant to pay a $50 Crime Stoppers fee. When a person is convicted of an offense, a
separately assessed $50 fee for Crime Stoppers is inappropriate unless the defendant is ordered to
repay all or part of a specific reward paid by a crime stoppers organization related to the
prosecution of the defendant. See id. Because nothing in the appellate record reflects that any
reward was paid by a crime stoppers organization with respect to the prosecution of Appellant, we
modify the trial court’s judgment to delete the $50 Crime Stoppers fee. Id.II. CONCLUSION
In sum, we modify the trial court’s judgment to (1) strike the $260 in restitution to the Ector
County Adult Probation Department, and (2) reduce the amount of court costs from $815 to $765
to reflect the deduction of the improperly assessed $50 Crime Stoppers fee. As modified, the
judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
JEFF ALLEY, Chief Justice
December 17, 2020
Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
3