Background
Victor Rajjaunh Harvey pleaded guilty under a plea bargain to enhanced assault family violence. The trial court sentenced him to ten years’ confinement but suspended that sentence and placed him on community supervision for five years.
About three and a half years later, the State alleged numerous violations, including committing assault and evading arrest or detention, using prohibited substances, repeatedly failing to report, failing to make required payments, performing no community service, and failing to complete anger-management classes. Harvey pleaded true to some allegations and not true to others. After hearing evidence, the trial court found some violations true, revoked community supervision, and sentenced Harvey to nine years and nine months in prison.
Harvey’s appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, representing that a conscientious review of the record revealed no potentially plausible basis for reversal. Harvey was notified of his right to respond but did not do so, and the State also filed no response.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record as required in an Anders proceeding and found no nonfrivolous issue that could support the appeal. It agreed with appointed counsel that there was no plausible basis for reversing Harvey’s conviction and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
The court nevertheless acted on its own initiative to delete a $15 time-payment fee from the bill of costs. Because an appeal stops the clock for purposes of that fee, the assessment was premature before issuance of the appellate mandate. The court ordered the district clerk to prepare an amended bill of costs, without prejudice to assessing the fee later if it becomes ripe.
The court also granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court reviewing an Anders brief must independently examine the record for potentially meritorious issues.
- The court found no nonfrivolous ground for reversing the revocation of Harvey’s community supervision or his resulting prison sentence.
- A time-payment fee assessed before the appellate mandate issues is premature and must be deleted, although it may be assessed later if it becomes ripe.
Why It Matters
The opinion illustrates that affirmance after an Anders review does not prevent an appellate court from correcting an improper cost assessment sua sponte. Even when the underlying revocation and sentence present no nonfrivolous appellate issue, a time-payment fee cannot remain in the bill of costs while the appeal is pending.