Alex Whitaker v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-26-00106-CR

ALEX WHITAKER, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 4 Tarrant County, Texas1

Trial Court No. 1782838, Honorable Andy Porter, Presiding

August 19, 2026

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before DOSS and YARBROUGH and PRATT, JJ.

Appellant Alex Whitaker was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for attempted sexual assault, a third-degree felony. The State moved to revoke Appellant’s community supervision and have him adjudicated guilty for the offense, alleging that he failed to complete or violated various terms of his community supervision. Appellant pleaded true to three of the allegations and not true to the

1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the

Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 73.001. Should a conflict exist between the precedent of the Second Court of Appeals and this Court on any relevant issue, we apply the precedent of the Second Court of Appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.

remaining four. After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated Appellant guilty and sentenced him to seven years and six months’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Anders Review

When appointed appellate counsel, after a conscientious examination of the record, concludes that an appeal is frivolous, counsel must file a brief identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel must also serve the client with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw and inform the client of the right to file a pro se response and a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). This Court, in turn, must independently examine the entire record to determine whether any nonfrivolous issue exists. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Appellant’s counsel has certified that, after diligently searching the record, he has found no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He provided Appellant with a copy of the Anders brief, the motion to withdraw, and the appellate record, and he notified Appellant of his rights to file a pro se response and a pro se petition for discretionary review. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). By letter, this Court also notified Appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant filed a letter insisting that he complied with the terms of his community supervision.

3

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s Anders brief. Our independent review confirms counsel’s assessment that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

As to Appellant’s assertion that he complied with all the terms of his community supervision despite pleading true to three of the seven grounds for the motion to adjudicate, his probation officer testified that he did not complete his required sex offender treatment program and was discharged. The reasons for Appellant’s discharge include missing five appointments, failing to complete assignments, viewing pornography twice per week, and using illicit drugs.2 Appellant tested positive for marijuana on five separate occasions and methamphetamine and alcohol once and failed to report on another occasion. Appellant also admitted to some violations through his own testimony while denying others. A single violation is sufficient to support revoking community supervision and adjudicating guilt. Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Accordingly, Appellant’s pleas of true and admission to violations foreclose any argument to the contrary.

MODIFICATION OF THE JUDGMENT

The bill of costs assesses a $15.00 time payment fee. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that the pendency of an appeal stops the clock for purposes of that fee. Dulin v. State, 620 S.W.3d 129, 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). Any time payment fee assessed while an appeal is pending must be stricken in its entirety, without prejudice to reassessment after the appellate mandate issues. Id. Here, the $15.00 fee was assessed

2 Appellant’s terms of community supervision also prohibited him from watching sexually explicit material or using illicit drugs.

4

while this appeal was pending. We therefore modify the bill of costs to delete it, without prejudice to reassessment if Appellant fails to timely pay the amounts owed after the mandate issues. See id.

Additionally, the judgment reflects that Appellant pleaded “not true” to the allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate guilt. However, the record reflects that Appellant pleaded true to allegations one through three and not true to allegations four through seven. We accordingly modify the judgment to accurately reflect Appellant’s pleas to the motion to adjudicate.

CONCLUSION

We modify the bill of costs to delete the $15.00 time payment fee. The district clerk is directed to prepare and file an amended bill of costs reflecting the modification and to furnish a copy to this Court, Appellant, and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. This modification extends to any order to withdraw funds from Appellant’s inmate account. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 501.014(e); Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 321 (Tex. 2009). Finding no arguable ground for appellate review, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified.3

Lawrence M. Doss

Justice

Do not publish.

3 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the

opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is informational and ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and continues after this Court grants counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.