Lawrence Porath v. the State of Texas

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

No. 02-24-00445-CR
No. 02-24-00446-CR
No. 02-24-00447-CR
No. 02-24-00448-CR
No. 02-24-00449-CR
No. 02-24-00450-CR
No. 02-24-00451-CR
No. 02-24-00452-CR
No. 02-24-00453-CR
___________________________

LAWRENCE PORATH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 211th District Court
Denton County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. F21-2302-211, F22-2662-211, F22-2663-211, F22-2664-211, F22-
2665-211, F22-2666-211, F22-2667-211, F22-2668-211, F22-2669-211

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

After showing up at his girlfriend’s home in violation of a protective order,

Appellant Lawrence Porath dragged her into an upstairs room while pointing a gun at

her minor daughter who had called 911; shot at the police officers who arrived to

rescue her; and then held her hostage while he engaged in a lengthy standoff with the

police. He pleaded guilty to nine offenses and elected to have a jury assess his

punishment. After hearing evidence that included the 911 call and several police

bodycam videos, the jury assessed a $10,000 fine in each case and confinement of

• 75 years each for 3 counts of aggravated assault against a public servant;

• 20 years each for 2 counts of aggravated assault;

• 20 years for an aggravated-kidnapping count;

• 10 years for continuous violence against the family; 1

• 10 years for 1 count of violating a protective order; and

• 5 years for a second count of violating a protective order.

The trial court sentenced Porath accordingly, and he appealed all nine judgments.

With supporting briefs,2 Porath’s court-appointed appellate attorney has moved

to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396,

1400 (1967). Counsel’s briefs and motion meet Anders’s requirement to present a

1
The acts underlying this offense predated the other offenses, which all
occurred on the same date.
2
Counsel filed five separate Anders briefs.

2
professional evaluation of the record that demonstrates why there are no arguable

grounds for relief. Id., 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Porath’s counsel provided him with a copy of

the Anders briefs and his motion to withdraw, notified him by letter of his right to file

a pro se response and to seek further review, and provided to him a form request to

obtain the appellate records. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2014). After obtaining a copy of the appellate records, Porath filed a pro se

response. Although given the opportunity, the State did not file a brief or response.

We have independently examined the 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, 923 (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

records and Porath’s response, we have determined that—other than some

correctable errors in one judgment and in all nine bills of costs—the appeals are

wholly frivolous and without merit. Our independent review of the records reveals

nothing further that might arguably support the appeals. 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 may modify a trial court’s judgment to correct clerical errors that contradict

the record. Alexander v. State, 496 S.W.2d 86, 87 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973); see Bray v.

State, 179 S.W.3d 725, 726 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (holding that an

appellate court has the authority to modify a judgment in an Anders appeal). And

3
because “[o]nly statutorily authorized court costs may be assessed against a criminal

defendant,” Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385, 389 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), we may

modify the bill of costs to reflect the appropriate statutory costs and to delete

improper charges. See id. at 396.

We correct one judgment error. The “Statute for Offense” in trial-court cause

number F22-2662-211 is incorrectly listed as “20.02 Penal Code.” See Tex. Penal Code

Ann. § 20.02 (describing offense of unlawful restraint). Because that conviction was

for aggravated assault, we correct the “Statute for Offense” in that cause number to

“22.02 Penal Code.” See id. § 22.02 (describing offense of aggravated assault).

We also correct errors in the bills of costs. Specific costs were not included in

the judgments; instead, each judgment states, “$ (see Bill of Costs).” Each clerk’s

record contains a bill of costs that assesses a $15 time-payment fee. Because the time-

payment fees were prematurely assessed, we strike them from each bill of costs. See

Dulin v. State, 620 S.W.3d 129, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (“[A] defendant’s appeal

suspends the duty to pay court costs and therefore suspends the running of the clock

for the purposes of the time[-]payment fee.”); see also Ruyle v. State, No. 02-24-00199-

CR, 2025 WL 938131, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 27, 2025, no pet.) (mem.

op., not designated for publication) (striking time-payment fee without prejudice to its

being included in the bill of costs when due).

In addition, under the heading “Punishment Options,” each trial court

judgment has selected the choice deferring payment of fines and costs until Porath’s

4
release from confinement. See Ramirez v. State, No. 02-24-00224-CR, 2025 WL

1350046, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 8, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op., not

designated for publication). Therefore, we further correct the bills of costs in all nine

judgments to show $0 due at this time. See id.

We (1) grant counsel’s motion to withdraw; (2) modify the judgment in trial-

court cause number F22-2662-211 to show the “Statute for Offense” as “22.02 Penal

Code” and affirm that judgment as modified; (3) affirm the remaining judgments; and

(4) correct the bills of costs in each cause number to strike the time-payment fees

assessed and to show a current balance of $0. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(a)–(b); Johnson,

423 S.W.3d at 396; Bray, 179 S.W.3d at 729.

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr
Elizabeth Kerr
Justice

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

Delivered: September 4, 2025

5