Deandre Deshawn Brooks v. the State of Texas
Docket 10-25-00309-CR
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part
- Docket
- 10-25-00309-CR
Appeal from an adjudication hearing and judgment revoking community supervision and sentencing for evading arrest in a motor vehicle
Summary
The Court of Appeals reviewed Deandre Brooks’s appeal after the trial court adjudicated him guilty of evading arrest in a motor vehicle, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal is frivolous; Brooks did not file a pro se response. The appellate court conducted an independent review, found no reversible error, but identified a nonreversible clerical error in the judgment’s listed court costs. The court modified the judgment to reflect $404 in costs, affirmed the judgment as modified, and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Issues Decided
- Whether the appeal presented any non-frivolous issues following the Anders brief
- Whether the trial court record supports the assessment of $1,744 in court costs or whether the judgment must be corrected to reflect the correct certified bill of costs
Court's Reasoning
The court independently reviewed the record as required by Anders and found no issues that could conceivably persuade reversal, so the adjudication and sentence stand. However, the certified supplemental bill of costs showed $404 was the actual cost amount; the appellate record contained a different bill of costs for another cause. Because the court had the necessary information, it corrected the judgment to make the record reflect the true court costs and affirmed the judgment as modified.
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California386 U.S. 738 (1967)
- Penson v. Ohio488 U.S. 75 (1988)
- Bigley v. State865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)
Parties
- Appellant
- Deandre Deshawn Brooks
- Appellee
- The State of Texas
- Judge
- Bryan F. Russ Jr.
- Judge
- Justice Smith
Key Dates
- Opinion filed
- 2026-04-23
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Receive corrected judgment
The clerk will enter the modified judgment reflecting court costs of $404; Brooks or his counsel should obtain a copy for the record.
- 2
Consider post-conviction remedies
If Brooks wishes to continue challenging legal or constitutional issues, he should consult counsel about filing a state or federal habeas petition or other post-conviction relief.
- 3
Monitor deadlines
If pursuing further remedies, confirm applicable filing deadlines and procedural requirements with an attorney promptly.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide about Brooks’s conviction and sentence?
- The court affirmed the trial court’s adjudication of guilt, revocation of community supervision, and five-year sentence after finding no reversible error.
- Why was the judgment changed?
- The court corrected a clerical error in the judgment’s listed court costs because the certified bill of costs showed the correct amount was $404, not $1,744.
- Can Brooks continue to challenge his conviction?
- This opinion affirms the judgment on direct appeal; further options may include seeking post-conviction relief or habeas corpus, but those are different proceedings and would require separate filings.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas
10-25-00309-CR
Deandre Deshawn Brooks,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
On appeal from the
82nd District Court of Falls County, Texas
Judge Bryan F. Russ Jr., presiding
Trial Court Cause No. 10055
JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Following a contested hearing on the State’s motion to adjudicate, the
trial court adjudicated Deandre Deshawn Brooks guilty of the offense of
evading arrest in a motor vehicle, revoked his community supervision, and
sentenced him to five years in prison. Brooks filed a notice of appeal from the
judgment adjudicating his guilt.
Appellate counsel has now filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders
brief in support of the motion asserting that the appeal presents no issues of
arguable merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel’s brief
demonstrates a professional evaluation of the record for error and he has
demonstrated compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. See id.
at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014);
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407-09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Brooks did
not file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief.
In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must conduct a full examination of
the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Anders,
386 U.S. at 744; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). Arguments are
frivolous when they “cannot conceivably persuade the court.” McCoy v. Ct. of
Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel's
brief, and we find that the appeal is frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Despite finding no reversible error, appointed counsel has presented one
issue of nonreversible error regarding court costs. He notes that the judgment
lists court costs in the amount of $1,744, while the certified bill of costs reflects
court costs in the amount of $404. He requests that this Court modify the
Deandre Deshawn Brooks v. The State of Texas Page 2
judgment to reflect court costs totaling $404. Though we requested a response
from the State on this issue, the State did not file a response.
We review the assessment of court costs on appeal to determine if there
is a basis for the cost. Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385, 390 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014). In our review of the record, we have not found a basis for the assessment
of $1,744 in court costs. The supplemental certified bill of costs1 reflects that
the “true and correct account of the cost” in this case is $404. An appellate
court has the power to correct a judgment to make the record speak the truth
when it has the necessary information to do so. Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26,
27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Therefore, we modify the judgment to reflect
court costs in the amount of $404, and we affirm the judgment as modified.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Brooks is granted.
STEVE SMITH
Justice
OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: April 23, 2026
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Affirmed as modified; Motion granted
Do not publish
CR25
1
The original bill of costs included in the appellate record was for court costs associated with a different
trial court cause number and a different defendant. In response to an order of this Court, the trial
court clerk supplemented the appellate record with the certified bill of costs applicable to this case.
Deandre Deshawn Brooks v. The State of Texas Page 3