Full Opinion

Opinion issued August 27, 2026 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00791-CR ——————————— DEAUNTRAY GRIFFFIN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 185th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1728413 MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Deauntray Griffin of murder and the court assessed a punishment of 25 years in prison.1 Griffin appealed. 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE § 19.02(b)(1), (2). Griffin’s appointed counsel has now filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief, stating that the record presents no reversible error and that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel states in his brief that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and is unable to advance any ground of error that warrants reversal. See id.; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements because it presents a professional evaluation of the record and supplies this Court with references to the record and legal authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Further, Griffin’s counsel informed this Court that he mailed a copy of the motion to withdraw and Anders brief to Griffin and informed him of his right to access the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09. 2 Griffin did not file a pro se response to the Anders brief. The State filed a waiver of its right to file a response to the Anders brief. We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal. See Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. And we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, 2 Subsequently, this Court also notified Griffin at his last known address of his right to access the record and file a response and provided a form motion to access the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 2 that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel— determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In our independent review of the record, we discovered that the bill of cost includes some costs not supported by the record. The bill of cost reflects that the appellant was charged a total of $105 for the summoning of witnesses. Article 102.011 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a defendant convicted of a felony or misdemeanor shall pay $5 for a peace officer’s summoning of a witness. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 102.011(a)(3). The trial court’s clerk’s record contains only four properly executed subpoenas. We therefore modify the witness-summoning fee to $20 in the trial court’s judgment. See id.; Robles v. State, No. 01-16-00199-CR, 2018 WL 1056482, at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 27, 2018, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Frazier v. State, No. 06-17-00035-CR, 2017 WL 3430907, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Aug. 10, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Except for these improperly imposed fees, we agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record before 3 us that arguably might support an appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28; see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Having modified the trial court’s judgment and the bill of cost to delete $85 for summoning witnesses—leaving total costs at $405 without considering any payment by Griffin, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm as modified the trial court’s judgment. 3 See Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725, 726 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (holding that an appellate court has authority to modify a judgment in an Anders appeal); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney Michael Falkenberg must immediately send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guiney and Johnson. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 3 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform Griffin of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review. See id. at 827 & n.6. 4