Jacob Thomas Vandecarr v. The State of Texas — Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Worthen

NO. 12-26-00141-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
JACOB THOMAS VANDECARR,
APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE
§
§
§
APPEAL FROM THE 7TH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jacob Thomas Vandecarr appeals his conviction for assault family violence by impeding
breath 	or 	circulation 	following 	the 	revocation 	of 	his 	deferred 	adjudication 	community
supervision. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1969). In his brief, counsel also raises an issue asserting nonreversible error.1 We affirm.
B ACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictment with assault family violence by impeding breath or
circulation.2 Appellant pleaded “guilty” pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement. 	The trial court
deferred its finding of guilt and ordered a presentence investigation report. 	Following a
sentencing hearing, the trial court found Appellant “guilty” and sentenced him to ten years
confinement probated for ten years.
1 When counsel files an Anders brief that also asserts nonreversible error, we conduct an independent
review of the record for reversible error involving the defendant’s conviction and sentence and then treat the briefed,
nonreversible error as a merits issue. See Cummins v. State, 646 S.W.3d 605, 612 (Tex. App.—Waco 2022, pet.
ref’d).
2 See T EX. PENAL CODE A NN. § 22.01(b)(2)(B).

2
Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision
alleging he had violated certain terms and conditions. 	Appellant pleaded “true” to the
jurisdictional allegation and “not true” to each of the remaining allegations. 	At the hearing, a
representative from the Smith County Community Supervision and Corrections Department
testified that Appellant failed to comply with several requests for random urinalysis testing. 	In
addition, Appellant repeatedly failed to complete his required two hours of community service or
pay his required monthly supervision and monthly pretrial supervision fees. At the conclusion of
the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant violated the conditions of his community
supervision, found him “guilty” of assault family violence by impeding breath or circulation, and
assessed punishment at ten years of confinement. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO A NDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel states that he diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the
opinion that the record reflects no reversible error. He further relates that he is well acquainted
with the facts of the case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d
807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of
the procedural history of the case and further states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable
issues of reversible error on appeal.3 We likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and
found none.
COURT COSTS
In his sole issue, Appellant argues that the trial court improperly assessed costs for a
county support fee of $0.60, a state judicial support fee of $5.40, a records management and
preservation fee of $2.50, and attorney fees of $73.50, and asks this Court to modify the trial
court’s judgment and bill of cost. The State asserts that Appellant forfeited the issue by failing to
file a notice of appeal within thirty days of the trial court’s deferred adjudication order that
placed Appellant on community supervision. We agree with the State.
3 In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the briefs,
notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response,
and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d
313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief
has expired, and no pro se brief has been filed.

3
When an appellant fails to file a notice of appeal within thirty days of being placed on
community supervision, an appeal raising issues regarding the propriety of court costs after
adjudication of guilt is not timely with respect to the court costs assessed in the deferred
adjudication order. 	Perez v. State, 424 S.W.3d 81, 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (concluding that
notice of appeal filed more than thirty days after being placed on community supervision was
untimely with respect to court costs assessed in deferred adjudication order); see also Wiley v.
State, 410 S.W.3d 313, 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (holding that defendant whose community
supervision was revoked forfeited challenge to court-appointed attorney’s fees as court costs by
failing to directly appeal from order originally imposing community supervision); Manuel v.
State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (holding that defendant placed on
deferred 	adjudication 	community 	supervision 	may 	raise 	issues 	relating 	to 	original 	plea
proceeding only in appeal filed when deferred adjudication is first imposed).
Appellant agreed, as a condition of community supervision, to pay all court costs. The
trial court’s order deferring adjudication of Appellant’s guilt and placing him on community
supervision reflects that Appellant owed court costs of $551.50. 	The trial court’s judgment
adjudicating guilt lists $0.00 in costs. The record contains a certified bill of costs, which reflects
that court costs initially totaling $340 with a balance of $0.4 We conclude that Appellant could
and should have made his complaint regarding the assessment of a county support fee, a state
judicial support fee, a records management and preservation fee, and attorney fees in a timely
appeal of the trial court’s deferred adjudication order. See Perez, 424 S.W.3d at 86. We further
conclude that Appellant’s failure to do so constituted a procedural default. See id. (citing Wiley,
410 S.W.3d at 320). We overrule issue one.
CONCLUSION
As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel moved for leave to withdraw. 	See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). 	We carried the motion for consideration with the merits.
Having done so and finding no reversible error and having overruled Appellant’s issue that
4 Although not completely set out in the brief, it appears that Appellant seeks a refund of costs already paid.
The time for complaining about the court costs was when deferred adjudication was first imposed. See Manuel, 994
S.W.2d at 661-62.

4
asserted nonreversible error, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the trial
court’s judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).
Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy
of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for
discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should
Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must
either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or file a pro se
petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion, or if a
motion for rehearing is filed, the date that the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by
this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 	See T EX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). 	Any petition for discretionary
review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. 	See
TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
JAMES T. WORTHEN
Chief Justice
Opinion delivered October 21, 2026.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Davis, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)

COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
OCTOBER 21, 2026
NO. 12-26-00141-CR
JACOB THOMAS VANDECARR,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
Appeal from the 7th District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-1162-22)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of the court that there was no error in the
trial court’s judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance.
James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Davis, J.