Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Trevor Dallas Blankenship pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors in Tarrant County: unlawful carrying of a weapon and driving while intoxicated (DWI). He was placed in the Veterans Treatment Court program, but was subsequently removed. The trial court then sentenced him to one year’s confinement in the Tarrant County Jail for each offense.
Blankenship appealed, and his appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief — a motion to withdraw accompanied by a professional evaluation of the record concluding that no non-frivolous grounds for appeal existed. Counsel complied with all procedural requirements, including notifying Blankenship of his right to file a pro se response and to seek further review before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Blankenship did not file a pro se response, and the State agreed the appeals were frivolous.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Court of Appeals independently reviewed the records, as required when an Anders brief is filed, and agreed the appeals were frivolous — except for three minor errors in the judgments. First, the court deleted a $100 fine from the DWI judgment because it was never orally pronounced at sentencing. Second, the court deleted a $2 transaction-based reimbursement fee from each judgment, finding no record of any transaction having been processed that would support the fee. Third, the court deleted $270 in court costs from the DWI judgment, applying the statutory rule that when a defendant is convicted in a single criminal action, each court cost or fee may be assessed only once — with costs properly assessed in the lowest cause-number judgment.
The court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and, as modified to correct the monetary errors, affirmed both judgments.
Key Takeaways
- An Anders brief triggers a mandatory independent review of the record by the appellate court, even where both counsel and the State agree no arguable grounds for appeal exist.
- Fines not orally pronounced at sentencing must be deleted from written judgments, even when the appeal is otherwise frivolous.
- Under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 102.073(a), court costs in a single criminal action involving multiple convictions may be assessed only once; duplicative cost assessments in higher cause-number judgments will be stricken.
- Administrative transaction fees under Article 102.072 are only authorized when an actual transaction has been processed — an unprocessed bill of costs is insufficient to support the fee.
Why It Matters
This case illustrates that even in appeals deemed wholly frivolous under Anders, Texas appellate courts will exercise their independent review to correct ministerial errors in judgments — particularly improper monetary assessments. Defense counsel and trial courts should ensure that fines, fees, and court costs in multi-count judgments are carefully reconciled with oral pronouncements and the statutory single-assessment rule.
The decision also serves as a practical reminder of the procedural safeguards built into the Anders process: appointed counsel must fully inform defendants of their appellate rights, and courts must independently verify the record before permitting withdrawal — a protection that here caught three distinct billing errors even in a case the court ultimately affirmed.