Summary
applying the constitutional holding in Salinas and modifying a judgment to eliminate the costs under section 133.102 attributable to abused children's counseling and comprehensive rehabilitation
Summary of this case from Heslip v. StateOpinion
No. 06-16-00162-CR
04-19-2017
TAKEYAI L. BRIDGES, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Hunt County, Texas
Trial Court No. CR1600170 Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Takeyai L. Bridges appeals her conviction for driving while her license was invalid due to a driving-while-intoxicated suspension. See Tex. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 521.457(f-1) (West 2013). Bridges was sentenced to 180 days' incarceration.
Bridge's attorney on appeal has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the trial proceedings in detail. The brief sets out the procedural history and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the proceeding. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. 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 has also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
Counsel provided Bridges with copies of the brief, the appellate record, and the motion to withdraw. Counsel also informed Bridges of her right to file a pro se response and of her right to review the record. Bridges' pro se response, if any, was due on or before January 5, 2017. Bridges did not file a pro se response or request an extension of time in which to file such a response.
In Anders cases, however, appellate courts "have the authority to reform judgments and affirm as modified in cases where there is non reversible error." Ferguson v. State, 435 S.W.3d 291, 294 (Tex. App.—Waco 2014, pet. struck) (comprehensively discussing appellate cases that have modified judgments in Anders cases).
Of the total court costs assessed in the judgment, the sum of $83.00 is designated as consolidated court costs, as authorized by Section 133.102 of the Local Government Code. See TEX. LOCAL GOV'T CODE ANN. § 133.102(a)(2) (West Supp. 2016). Consolidated court costs allocated to "abused children's counseling" and "comprehensive rehabilitation" have been held unconstitutional. Salinas v. State, No. PD-0170-16, 2017 WL 915525, at *4-5 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 8, 2017). In Salinas, the court stated, "The fee should be reduced pro rata, according to the percentage allocated to the impermissible accounts." Id. at *5. The combined percentage attributable to the "abused children's counseling" and "comprehensive rehabilitation" accounts under the statute is 9.8306%. Here, 9.8306% of the $83.00 fee is $8.16. Subtracting that amount from the $83.00 fee yields a fee of $74.84.
We have reviewed the entire appellate record and have independently determined that no reversible error exists. Accordingly, we modify the judgment to include the proper amount of consolidated court costs of $74.84.
We affirm the trial court's judgment, as so modified.
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, he 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.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice Date Submitted: March 6, 2017
Date Decided: April 19, 2017 Do Not Publish