Background
Cody Scott Sherwood pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Because he had a prior felony conviction, the second-degree felony carried an enhanced punishment range of five to ninety-nine years’ imprisonment. The trial court placed him on community supervision for ten years.
The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging that Sherwood violated five conditions of community supervision. Sherwood pleaded true to every allegation. The trial court found the allegations true, revoked community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to fifteen years in prison. His appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, asserting that the record presented no arguable ground for appeal. Sherwood did not file a pro se response.
The Court’s Holding
After independently examining the record and counsel’s brief as required in an Anders appeal, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. It therefore upheld the revocation, adjudication, and fifteen-year sentence and granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw.
The court nevertheless modified the bill of costs by striking a $15 time-payment fee. Because that fee may not be imposed while an appeal remains pending, its assessment was premature. The modification was without prejudice to assessing the fee more than thirty days after the appellate mandate issues if Sherwood still has not fully paid the fines, court costs, or restitution he owes.
Key Takeaways
- A court reviewing an Anders brief must independently examine the full record to determine whether any arguable appellate issue exists.
- Sherwood’s pleas of true supported revocation after the State alleged five violations of his community-supervision conditions.
- A time-payment fee cannot be assessed during a pending appeal, although it may become assessable later if qualifying amounts remain unpaid.
Why It Matters
The opinion illustrates that an appellate court’s Anders review extends beyond accepting counsel’s assessment that an appeal is frivolous. The court must conduct its own examination and may correct a discrete error even when it finds no arguable basis for reversing the conviction or sentence.
For criminal practitioners, the decision also underscores the timing limitation on Texas time-payment fees: such a fee must be removed from costs assessed during the appeal, subject to possible later assessment after the mandate under the applicable statutory conditions.