Opinion filed November 15, 2018




                                     In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                   ___________

                              No. 11-18-00099-CR
                                   ___________

              GEORGE ALCALA GONZALES, Appellant
                                        V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


                     On Appeal from the 32nd District Court
                             Nolan County, Texas
                         Trial Court Cause No. 12300


                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Based upon an open plea of guilty, the trial court convicted Appellant, George
Alcala Gonzales, of the offense of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.
Appellant pleaded true to both enhancement allegations, and the trial court assessed
his punishment at confinement for twenty-five years and a fine of $1,000. We
modify and affirm.
      Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The
motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously
examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous.
Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, the motion to withdraw,
and the appellate record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the record
and file a response to counsel’s brief. Appellant has not filed a response.1 Counsel
also advised Appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review in order
to seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4,
68.
        Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v.
State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Following the procedures outlined
in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree
with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist.2
        We note, however, that the judgment contains a nonreversible error. The
record reflects that Appellant was convicted of a third-degree felony but was
sentenced as a habitual offender under Section 12.42(d) of the Penal Code. See TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(d) (West Supp. 2018), § 37.09(a)(1), (c) (West 2016).
Section 12.42(d) does not authorize the imposition of a fine. See id. § 12.42(d);
Blevins v. State, 74 S.W.3d 125, 132 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref’d).
Because the fine imposed by the trial court is not authorized by the applicable statute,
we modify the trial court’s judgment to delete the fine. See Light v. State, No. 05-
99-01384-CR, 2000 WL 1176604, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 21, 2000, no pet.)



        1
         This court granted Appellant more than thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response
to counsel’s brief.
        2
         We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.

                                                     2
(not designated for publication) (Anders appeal in which appellate court modified
trial court’s judgment to delete an unauthorized fine).
        We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, modify the judgment of the trial court
to delete the $1,000 fine, and affirm the judgment as modified.


                                                                   PER CURIAM


November 15, 2018
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Willson, J., and Wright, S.C.J.3

Willson, J., not participating.




        3
          Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland,
sitting by assignment.

                                                      3
