Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-25-00152-CR __________________ MICHAEL WAYNE LOWMAN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 221st District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 24-07-10974 _______________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Michael Wayne Lowman appeals his conviction for stalking, a third-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 42.072(b). After filing the notice of appeal, the trial court appointed an attorney to represent Lowman in his appeal. The attorney discharged his responsibilities to Lowman by filing an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). In the brief, Lowman’s attorney represents there are no arguable reversible errors to be addressed in Lowman’s appeal. See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief the attorney filed contains a professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, Lowman’s attorney explains why, under the record in Lowman’s case, no arguable issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Lowman’s attorney also represented that he sent Lowman a copy of the brief and the record. When the brief was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified Lowman, by letter, that he could file a pro se brief or response with the Court on or before April 28, 2026. Lowman filed a pro se brief in which he alleges several issues. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives an Anders brief and also receives a pro se brief, the 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. (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)). We do not address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se brief when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. Id. at 827. Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 2 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire record, counsel’s brief, and Lowman’s pro se brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28 (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. Appellate courts are authorized to reform judgments and affirm a modified judgment in an Anders case when the error involves a non-reversible error. See Getts v. State, 155 S.W.3d 153, 155, 158 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (affirming appellate court’s reformation of trial court’s judgment in Anders case); Mitchell v. State, 653 S.W.3d 295, 297 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2022, no pet.). The record shows that Lowman elected to be punished by the jury. The jury assessed his punishment at four and a half years confinement and a fine of $5,000, well within the range of punishment for a third-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.34. The jury verdict that was read aloud in Lowman’s presence correctly included the $5,000 fine, but the trial judge failed to separately orally pronounce the $5,000 fine assessed by the jury. The trial court was required to include that fine in the written judgment. Accordingly, we conclude that, despite the trial judge’s failure to separately orally 3 pronounce the $5,000 fine assessed by the jury, the fine may be properly imposed. See Ette v. State, 559 S.W.3d 511, 515 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). “A jury’s lawful verdict on punishment is inviolate, and the trial court must abide by it.” Id. at 517; see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.10(b). Here, Lowman elected for the jury to assess punishment, the jury’s verdict imposed a lawful fine within the permissible statutory range, and the jury’s verdict was read aloud in the court’s presence. We hold that the $5,000 fine assessed by the jury must be imposed despite the trial judge’s failure to orally pronounce it. Ette, 559 S.W.3d at 515, 517. Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment by deleting the “$0.00” in the section entitled “Fines:” and replace it with “$5,000.00.” The trial court’s judgment is affirmed as modified.1 AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. KENT CHAMBERS Justice Submitted on August 26, 2026 Opinion Delivered August 31, 2026 Do Not Publish Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ. 1 Lowman may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 4