In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
No. 02-25-00442-CR
ANDREA MICHELLE COLLARD, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 7
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1881203
Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Womack, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. INTRODUCTION
A jury convicted Andrea Michelle Collard of one Class B misdemeanor count of
criminal trespass, see Tex. Penal Code § 30.05, and the trial court assessed her
punishment at ninety days’ confinement, see id. § 12.22. The trial court suspended
imposition of the sentence and placed Collard on eighteen months’ community
supervision. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42A.053.
II. BACKGROUND
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney1 has filed a motion to withdraw
as counsel and a brief in support of that motion, representing that there are no
reversible, non-frivolous issues to be raised in this appeal. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s brief and motion meet
the requirements of Anders, which requires presenting a professional evaluation of the
record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for appellate relief. Id.,
87 S. Ct. at 1400; see In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim App. 2008)
(orig. proceeding). Appellant’s counsel provided her with a copy of the Anders brief
and motion to withdraw, notified Appellant of her right to file a pro se response in this
1
Two attorneys, Kevin C. Smith and Obinna Okeke, are signatories to Collard’s appellate brief; both have moved to withdraw. However, only Smith was appointed by the trial court, and Smith was the only signatory to the notice of appearance filed in this case.
2
court and to file a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals
should this court agree that the appeal is frivolous, and provided her with a form motion
to access the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2014). Appellant has neither requested a copy of the record from this court nor
filed a response. The State filed a letter stating that it agreed with Appellant’s counsel
that there are no reversible, non-frivolous appellate issues and that it would not reply
to the Anders brief.
III. DISCUSSION
After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel both files a motion to withdraw on
the ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the Anders requirements, we must
independently examine the record for any arguable ground for reversal that may be
raised on her behalf. 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).
We have fulfilled our duty to independently examine the record. After reviewing
the appellate record and the Anders brief, we have determined that—but for one minor,
non-reversible error in the judgment—the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.
We delete from the judgment $7 of “Reimbursement Fees” assessed without
reference to a statutory basis. Chapter 102 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
governs costs to be paid by convicted defendants. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc.
arts. 102.001–.073. Only statutorily authorized costs may be assessed against a criminal
3
defendant. See id. art. 103.002 (“An officer may not impose a cost for a service not
performed or for a service for which a cost is not expressly provided by law.”). Because
the record contains no bill of costs and assesses the reimbursement fee without a
statutory basis, we delete it from the judgment. See Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385, 389
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
Aside from this minor correction, our independent review reveals nothing that
might arguably support the appeal. 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).
We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
IV. CONCLUSION
We modify the trial court’s judgment to delete the $7 reimbursement fee and
affirm the judgment as modified.
/s/ Dana Womack
Dana Womack
Justice
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: July 9, 2026
4