Curtis Anthony Crowe v. The State of Texas Appeal from 124th District Court of Gregg County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-21-00004-CR CURTIS ANTHONY CROWE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 124th District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 48653-B Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Stevens MEMORANDUM OPINION On December 17, 2020, Curtis Anthony Crowe pled guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.1 The trial court accepted Crowe’s plea, found him guilty of the charged offense, and sentenced him to fifteen years’ incarceration. Crowe appeals.2 Crowe’s appellate counsel filed a brief that outlined the procedural history of the case, provided a detailed summary of the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings, and stated that counsel found no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Crowe’s counsel filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal and provided Crowe with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw. His counsel also informed Crowe of his right to review the record3 and file a pro se response. On July 2, 2021, this Court notified Crowe that, if he wished to file a pro se response to his counsel’s Anders brief, any such response was due on or before August 2, 2021. We received neither a 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02. 2 In the same proceeding Crowe pled guilty to another aggravated assault with deadly weapon case. Please see our opinion in cause number 06-21-00005-CR. 3 Counsel sent Crowe a copy of the reporter’s and clerk’s records. 2 pro se response from Crowe nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have reviewed the entire appellate record and have independently determined that no reversible error exists. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). However, in Anders cases, appellate courts “have the authority to reform judgments and affirm as modified in cases where there is non reversible error.” Ferguson v. State, 435 S.W.3d 291, 294 (Tex. App.—Waco 2014, pet. struck) (comprehensively discussing appellate cases that have modified judgments in Anders cases). The record shows that the judgment and bill of costs assessed Crowe a time-payment fee of $15.00. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has recently concluded that a time-payment fee like the one imposed here “must indeed be struck for being prematurely assessed because a defendant’s appeal suspends the duty to pay court costs and therefore suspends the running of the clock for the purposes of the time payment fee.” Dulin v. State, 620 S.W.3d 129, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). “As a consequence, even now, assessment of the time payment fee in this case would be premature because appellate proceedings are still pending.” Id. Pursuant to Dulin, we strike the time payment fee “in [its] entirety, without prejudice to [it] being assessed later if, more than 30 days after the issuance of the appellate mandate, the defendant has failed to completely pay any fine, court costs, or restitution” owed. Id. We modify the bill of costs by deleting the time-payment fee. 3 In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must either dismiss the appeal or affirm the trial court’s judgment. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, as modified.4 Scott E. Stevens Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: September 7, 2021 October 14, 2021 Do Not Publish 4 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of Appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
