Deandre Deshawn Brooks v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
• Decided: April 23, 2026
• Docket: 10-25-00309-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00309-CR

Deandre Deshawn Brooks, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 82nd District Court of Falls County, Texas Judge Bryan F. Russ Jr., presiding Trial Court Cause No. 10055

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a contested hearing on the State’s motion to adjudicate, the

trial court adjudicated Deandre Deshawn Brooks guilty of the offense of

evading arrest in a motor vehicle, revoked his community supervision, and

sentenced him to five years in prison. Brooks filed a notice of appeal from the

judgment adjudicating his guilt. Appellate counsel has now filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders

brief in support of the motion asserting that the appeal presents no issues of

arguable merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel’s brief

demonstrates a professional evaluation of the record for error and he has

demonstrated compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. See id.

at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]

1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014);

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407-09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Brooks did

not file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief.

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must conduct a full examination of

the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Anders,

386 U.S. at 744; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). Arguments are

frivolous when they “cannot conceivably persuade the court.” McCoy v. Ct. of

Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel's

brief, and we find that the appeal is frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Despite finding no reversible error, appointed counsel has presented one

issue of nonreversible error regarding court costs. He notes that the judgment

lists court costs in the amount of $1,744, while the certified bill of costs reflects

court costs in the amount of $404. He requests that this Court modify the

Deandre Deshawn Brooks v. The State of Texas Page 2 judgment to reflect court costs totaling $404. Though we requested a response

from the State on this issue, the State did not file a response.

We review the assessment of court costs on appeal to determine if there

is a basis for the cost. Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385, 390 (Tex. Crim. App.

2014). In our review of the record, we have not found a basis for the assessment

of $1,744 in court costs. The supplemental certified bill of costs1 reflects that

the “true and correct account of the cost” in this case is $404. An appellate

court has the power to correct a judgment to make the record speak the truth

when it has the necessary information to do so. Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26,

27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Therefore, we modify the judgment to reflect

court costs in the amount of $404, and we affirm the judgment as modified.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Brooks is granted.

STEVE SMITH Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: April 23, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed as modified; Motion granted Do not publish CR25

1 The original bill of costs included in the appellate record was for court costs associated with a different trial court cause number and a different defendant. In response to an order of this Court, the trial court clerk supplemented the appellate record with the certified bill of costs applicable to this case.

Deandre Deshawn Brooks v. The State of Texas Page 3