Shyann Nichole Fuentes v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 29, 2025
• Docket: 02-24-00298-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-24-00298-CR ___________________________

SHYANN NICHOLE FUENTES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 355th District Court Hood County, Texas Trial Court No. CR15788

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 1, 2022, Appellant Shyann Nichole Fuentes was indicted for the

offense of sexual assault of a child, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.

§ 22.011. One year later, Fuentes entered into a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to

the charge in exchange for 10 years’ deferred adjudication community supervision.

Approximately five months later, the State filed a motion to proceed with an

adjudication of guilt, alleging that Fuentes had violated seven terms of her community

supervision, including the use of methamphetamine in violation of the condition

requiring her to abstain from the use of controlled substances. Fuentes pleaded

“true” to all seven of the State’s allegations. The trial court found the allegations true,

revoked Fuentes’s community supervision, adjudicated her guilty, and sentenced her

to 20 years’ imprisonment. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.33(a).

Fuentes’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a

brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967),

representing that after having conducted a “conscientious examination of the record

of this case,” he has determined that the appeal of this case is frivolous. In

compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel provided Fuentes with copies of the brief and

the motion to withdraw, as well as copies of both the clerk’s record and the reporter’s

record, and informed her of her right to file a pro se response and to seek

discretionary review pro se should this court deny relief. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

2 Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds for relief. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)

(orig. proceeding). Fuentes filed a pro se response to the Anders brief but raised no

arguable issue that might support an appeal. The State did not file a brief, nor was it

required to.

Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the

ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we must

independently examine the record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1991). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

After having carefully reviewed counsel’s brief, Fuentes’s response, and the

appellate record we have found nothing that arguably might support an appeal, other

than correcting minor errors in the judgment and bill of costs. Therefore, we agree

with counsel that, but for the following errors in the judgment and bill of costs, an

appeal would be wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

The trial court did not orally pronounce a fine during sentencing, and the

judgment states that there are no fines, but the $360 “court costs” listed in the

judgment correspond to a $337.50 “Criminal Fine Fee” and a $22.50 child abuse

3 prevention fine in the bill of costs. “A fine is not a court cost or fee; it is part of the

punishment.” Anastassov v. State, 664 S.W.3d 815, 823 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022). Thus,

barring a jury-verdict exception not applicable here, see Ette v. State, 559 S.W.3d 511,

513 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018), a fine must be orally pronounced in the defendant’s

presence. Alexander v. State, 301 S.W.3d 361, 363–64 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009,

no pet.). The record reflects that no fines were orally pronounced in the defendant’s

presence during sentencing.

Accordingly, we correct the judgment and bill of costs by deleting these two

fines that were not orally pronounced during sentencing. See Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d

725, 730 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (en banc).

Having made these corrections to the judgment and bill of costs, we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified.

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: August 29, 2025