Full Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas 10-26-00244-CR Destiny Ann Stewart, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee On appeal from the 19th District Court of McLennan County, Texas Judge Thomas C. West, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 2025-2846-C1 JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court. MEMORANDUM OPINION Destiny Ann Stewart pled guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance, that being heroin, in an amount less than one gram, a state jail felony. The trial court sentenced Stewart to 24 months in a State Jail facility. Stewart’s appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of the motion not only asserting that counsel has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in counsel’s opinion, the appeal is frivolous pursuant to the United States Supreme Court opinion in Anders, but also presenting nonreversible error in the judgment pursuant to this Court’s order in Allison. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); Allison v. State, 609 S.W.3d 624, 628 (Tex. App.—Waco 2020, order). See also Cummins v. State, 646 S.W.3d 605, 616 (Tex. App.—Waco 2022, pet. ref'd). Counsel’s brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In reviewing the Anders portion of this appeal, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n.10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). After a review of Stewart v. State Page 2 the entire record in this appeal, we have determined the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Cummins v. State, 646 S.W.3d 605, 620–621 (Tex. App.—Waco 2022, pet. ref'd). As noted previously, despite finding no reversible error, counsel has presented an issue of nonreversible error, that being the assessment of court- appointed attorney’s fees in the amount of $600.00 and a civil filing fee of $61.00. The State has filed a letter-brief in response to this alleged error, see Cummins, 646 S.W.3d at 615 (State is expected to file response addressing merits of nonreversible error presented in Allison brief), and concedes error. After reviewing the record and the briefing of the parties, we agree that the assessment of these fees is erroneous. Thus, Stewart’s issue of nonreversible error is sustained, and the trial court’s assessment of court costs must be reduced by $661.00. We have the authority to correct and reform a judgment to make the record speak the truth when we have the information to do so. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b) (authorizing court of appeals to “modify a trial court’s judgment and affirm it as modified”); see also Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). We are also authorized to correct errors in a bill of costs independent of finding error in the trial court’s judgment. See Briceno v. State, 675 S.W.3d 87, 100-101 (Tex. App.—Waco 2023, no pet.); Cummins v. State, Stewart v. State Page 3 646 S.W.3d 605, 622 & n.12 (Tex. App.—Waco 2022, pet. ref'd) (citing Dulin v. State, 620 S.W.3d 129, 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) and London v. State, 490 S.W.3d 503, 508 n.5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)). Accordingly, the trial court’s Judgment of Conviction by Court—Waiver of Jury Trial, signed on June 4, 2026, is modified to delete any reference to the assessment of court-appointed attorney’s fees against Stewart and reflect “Court Costs” as $1,150.00. Further, we modify the Certified Bill of Costs issued on August 13, 2026 to delete the $600.00 assessed in court-appointed attorney’s fees and the $61.00 assessed as a civil filing fee. As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Stewart is granted. LEE HARRIS Justice OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: November 12, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Harris, and Justice Westerfeld Affirmed as modified Motion granted Do Not Publish CR25 Stewart v. State Page 4