Opinion
05-22-01040-CR 05-22-01041-CR05-22-01042-CR 05-22-01043-CR 05-22-01044-CR
11-02-2023
ZKAVEON DEVANTE PLEASANT, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b)
On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F17-52206, F17-52207, F17-70396, F17-75256, and F17-75275.
Before Justices Carlyle, Smith, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Carlyle
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CORY L. CARLYLE, JUSTICE
Zkaveon Devante Pleasant appeals the revocation of his community supervision and adjudication of guilt for the offenses of robbery, evading arrest, and aggravated robbery. As modified below, we affirm in this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Appellant's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw that is supported by a brief in which he professionally examines the record and applicable law then concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Specifically, counsel analyzes potential issues concerning (1) venue, (2) the applicable statutes of limitations, (3) appointment of counsel, (4) the indictment, (5) motions to revoke and adjudicate, (6) waiver of the right to a jury, (7) the sufficiency of the evidence, (8) objections and rulings, (9) admonitions, (10) the validity of the sentence, (11) effective assistance of counsel, and (12) the performed duties of appointed counsel. After an order from this Court, counsel supplemented the brief with additional details concerning sentencing.
We conclude counsel's amended brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), presents a professional evaluation of the record, and shows why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders). Counsel certifies that he has provided Mr. Pleasant with a copy of the brief and his motion to withdraw. On May 23, 2023, this Court advised Mr. Pleasant of his right to file a pro se response, but he has not done so. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (explaining right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel).
We have reviewed the record, the Anders brief filed by Mr. Pleasant's counsel, and the letter response filed by the State. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826- 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (identifying appellate courts' duties in Anders cases). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit, and we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The State has asked us to modify the judgment below to reflect the amount of unpaid costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (en banc); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex. App.- Dallas, pet. ref'd); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.16. Here, the record reflects that (1) appellant was adjudicated guilty in five cases, (2) the trial court assessed $522.90 in costs in four of those cases (including F17-75275), (3) the trial court assessed $549.90 in one of those cases, and (4) appellant paid $298.90 in costs.
We therefore modify the judgment in F17-75275 (the highest category offense at issue) to reflect the fact that appellant has a total unpaid balance of $271.90 in costs for all of the cases below and affirm the judgment as modified.
JUDGMENT
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered.