NUMBER 13-26-00157-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
CODY SCOTT SHERWOOD, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
ON APPEAL FROM THE 415TH DISTRICT COURT
OF PARKER COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Peña, West, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice West
Appellant Cody Scott Sherwood pled guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon, a second-degree felony with an enhanced punishment range of five to ninetynine years’ imprisonment due to a prior felony conviction. See TEX. PENAL CODE §§
12.32(a), 12.42(b), 22.02(a)(2). Appellant was placed on community supervision for ten years. Afterward, the State moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging violation of five separate
conditions of community supervision. Appellant pled true to all allegations. The trial court
found all allegations true, revoked community supervision, adjudicated appellant guilty,
and assessed punishment at fifteen years’ imprisonment. Appellant’s court-appointed
counsel has filed an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal.
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm the trial court’s judgment
as modified. 1
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel
filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record
yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal could be predicated. See id.
Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas,
an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds
none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set
out pertinent legal authorities.” (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex.
App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.))); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510
n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Second Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket
equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 73.001.
2
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),
appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no
reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Appellant’s counsel also informed this Court
in writing that he: (1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion
to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed appellant
of his right to file a pro se response, to review the record prior to filing that response, and
to seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided
appellant a copy of the appellate record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d
at 319–20; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09. Appellant did not file a pro
se response.
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we have found
nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the
opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for
reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule
of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.
3
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, appellant’s counsel has asked this Court for
permission to withdraw as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five
days from the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion
and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise him of his right to file a petition for
discretionary review. 2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at
412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
IV. MODIFICATION OF BILL OF COSTS
The State requested modification of the bill of costs which assesses a time
payment fee of $15. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 102.030. This fee may not be
imposed during the pendency of an appeal. See Dulin v. State, 620 S.W.3d 129, 133
(Tex. Crim. App. 2021). Accordingly, we modify the bill of costs by striking the time
payment fee in its entirety without prejudice to its assessment more than thirty days after
the appellate mandate has issued if, at that time, appellant has still failed to completely
pay fines, court costs, or restitution owed by him. See Johnson v. State, No. 02-25-00142-CR, 2025 WL 3559030, at *10, __ S.W.3d __, __ (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 11, 2025,
2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case
by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he 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 must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.
4
pet. ref’d) (citing Dulin, 620 S.W.3d at 133); Bryant v. State, 642 S.W.3d 847, 850 (Tex.
App.—Waco 2021, no pet.) (same).
V. CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified.
JON WEST
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed on the
6th day of August, 2026.
5