Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _______________ NO. 09-25-00425-CR ________________ CALVIN LEE RANDALL, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F21-36882 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A grand jury indicted Appellant Calvin Lee Randall for one count of aggravated assault, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a)(1), (b). Randall pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, and the trial court accepted his plea, deferred the adjudication of guilt, placed Randall on community supervision for ten years, and required that he pay $3,000 in restitution. Subsequently, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Unadjudicated Probation, and later a First Amended Motion to Revoke Unadjudicated Probation, that alleged 1 Randall violated multiple terms and conditions of his community supervision. A hearing on the State’s Motion was held, and the trial court found that Randall violated the terms and conditions of his probation and sentenced Randall to fifteen years of imprisonment and ordered that he pay $6,704 in fines, reimbursement fees, and court costs. Randall’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief presenting counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is frivolous; he also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On March 9, 2026, after Randall’s counsel filed his brief, we granted an extension of time for Randall to file a pro se brief, but Randall did not file a response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives an Anders brief, an appellate court has two choices. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “It may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[;] [o]r, it may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id. (citation omitted). The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders brief. Id. 2 Upon receiving an Anders brief, a court must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire record, and counsel’s brief, and we have found no reversible error, and we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827–28. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Our review of the record shows that the trial court did not include in its oral pronouncement of Randall’s sentence, a restitution fee. Yet, the case balance sheet indicates that the $3,000 restitution fee was included in the $6,704 in fines, reimbursement fees, and court costs on the written judgment. However, because the restitution fee was not part of the trial court’s oral pronouncement of Randall’s sentence, we modify the written judgment to delete the $3,000 amount of restitution included in the judgment, and modify the judgment to include $3,704 in fines, reimbursement fees, and court costs. Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (explaining that the oral pronouncement controls when there is conflict between the oral pronouncement of sentence and written judgment). Additionally, the State agreed that amount on the written judgment erroneously 3 included a restitution fee, and that it should be modified and reduced from $6,704 to $3,704. As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.1 AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice Submitted on August 17, 2026 Opinion Delivered August 31, 2026 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ. 1 Randall may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 4