Trevor Dallas Blankenship v. the State of Texas

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________

No. 02-25-00302-CR
No. 02-25-00303-CR
___________________________

TREVOR DALLAS BLANKENSHIP, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 7
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 1776730, 1784261

Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Trevor Dallas Blankenship pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors––unlawful

carrying of a weapon and driving while intoxicated (DWI)––and was placed in the

Veterans Treatment Court.1 See Tex. Penal Code §§ 46.02(a-1)(2)(A), 49.04(a), (d).

After he was removed from that court’s program, the trial court assessed his

punishment for each offense at one year’s confinement in the Tarrant County Jail.

Blankenship appealed.

Blankenship’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a

brief representing that “no non-frivolous issue may be raised in” these appeals. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s brief and

motion meet Anders’s requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the

records demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See In re Schulman,

252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Additionally, in

compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel provided Blankenship with copies of the brief

and the motion to withdraw, as well as a form request for the appellate records. See

436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). He also certified to this court that he

informed Blankenship of his right to file a pro se response and to seek further review

in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals should this court agree that the appeals are

frivolous.

1
He also pleaded guilty to felony evading arrest or detention with a vehicle. See
Blankenship v. State, No. 02-25-00225-CR, 2026 WL 179569, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth Jan. 22, 2026, pet. filed) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

2
Blankenship did not file a pro se response. The State filed a letter agreeing that

the appeals are frivolous, but it declined to file a formal reply.

We have independently examined the appellate records, as is our duty upon the

filing of an Anders brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.

1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.);

see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). After carefully

reviewing the appellate records and counsel’s brief, we agree that––but for a few

minor errors in the judgments––the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit.

First, we delete the $100 fine assessed in the judgment in trial court number

1784261, the DWI case, because it was not orally pronounced. See Gourley v. State, 710

S.W.3d 368, 379 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth 2025, pet. ref’d).

Second, we delete from each judgment $2 of the “Reimbursement Fees,”2

which the bills of costs describe as transaction fees. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art.

102.072 (“An officer listed in Article 103.003 or a community supervision and

corrections department may assess an administrative fee for each transaction made by

the officer or department relating to the collection of fines, fees, restitution, or other

costs imposed by a court.”). The bills of costs indicate that no payment had been

received by the county clerk’s office, and nothing else in the records indicates that the

county clerk’s office or the community supervision and corrections department had

The DWI judgment assesses an additional $15 in reimbursement fees
2

according to Code of Criminal Procedure Article 102.018(a).

3
processed any transaction. See Pritchett v. State, No. 05-23-00367-CR, 2025 WL

2108837, at *7 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 28, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated

for publication). Accordingly, the records do not show a basis for assessing the $2

reimbursement fee in each case.

Third, both judgments impose $270 in court costs. But “[i]n a single criminal

action in which a defendant is convicted of two or more offenses or of multiple

counts of the same offense, the court may assess each court cost or fee only once

against the defendant.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 102.073(a); Johnson v. State, Nos. 02-

23-00090-CR, 02-23-00091-CR, 02-23-00092-CR, 02-23-00093-CR, 2024 WL

1318238, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 28, 2024, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not

designated for publication). Accordingly, we delete the $270 in court costs from the

judgment in trial court cause number 1784261. See Johnson, 2024 WL 1318238, at *3

(“[W]hen the convictions are the same category of offense and the costs are all the

same, the court costs should be based on the lowest cause number.”). 3

Aside from these minor corrections, our independent review of the records

reveals nothing that might arguably support the appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

3
Although when pronouncing Blankenship’s sentence, the trial court stated, “It
will be the Order of the Court that the cost of the court run with the time that you’re
being served as well,” it is unclear whether the trial court meant that Blankenship’s
231 days of time-served credit would apply to the entire amount of costs and fees
assessed. Nothing in the judgments indicates that Blankenship would receive cost and
fee credit for time served. But although itemizing the costs assessed in the judgments,
both bills of costs also show $0.00 for the total amount owed.

4
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. We modify the judgment in trial court

cause number 1784261 to delete the $100 fine, $270 court costs, and $2 of the

reimbursement fee. We modify the judgment in trial court cause number 1776730 to

delete the $2 reimbursement fee. As modified, we affirm both judgments.

/s/ Wade Birdwell

Wade Birdwell
Justice

Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: June 18, 2026

5