James Ronald Neal, Jr. v. the State of Texas

In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-25-00015-CR

JAMES RONALD NEAL, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1816615

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Morriss,* JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens

___________________
*Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment
MEMORANDUM OPINION

James Ronald Neal, Jr., pled guilty to burglary of a building and pled true to two

enhancement paragraphs based on prior state jail felony convictions.1 See TEX. PENAL CODE

ANN. § 30.02(c)(1) (Supp.). After a bench trial, the trial court sentenced Neal to eight years’

imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.34(a), 12.425(a). Neal appeals.

Neal’s counsel filed a brief stating that she reviewed the record and found no genuinely

arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. In her brief, counsel sets out the procedural

history and summarizes the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings. Counsel also

filed a motion seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

In her brief, counsel stated that she mailed Neal copies of all volumes of the reporter’s

record, a letter explaining the importance of the Anders brief and how Neal may pursue issues

moving forward, a copy of the brief, and her motion to withdraw. In her motion to withdraw,

counsel stated that she mailed Neal a letter outlining his right to file a pro se brief and copies of

the reporter’s record, the clerk’s record, and a letter confirming that counsel would be filing an

Anders brief and motion to withdraw. Those actions comply with an appointed counsel’s

responsibilities when filing an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw in accordance with Kelly.

See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Counsel’s professional evaluation of the record demonstrates why there are no arguable

grounds to be raised on appeal and meets the requirements of Anders v. California. See Anders

1
This appeal was transferred to this Court from the Second Court of Appeals pursuant to a Texas Supreme Court
docket equalization order. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Supp.). Accordingly, we apply the precedent of
the Second Court of Appeals in deciding this case to the extent that it conflicts with our own. See TEX. R. APP. P.
41.3.
2
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 318–20. After our review of

the entire appellate record, we have independently determined that “there are no non-frivolous

grounds for appeal.” See Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 318 n.16.

“[A]ppellate courts are authorized to reform judgments and affirm as modified in Anders

cases involving non-reversible error.” Mitchell v. State, 653 S.W.3d 295, 297 (Tex. App.—

Texarkana 2022, no pet.) (comprehensively discussing appellate cases that have modified

judgments in Anders cases). In this case, the judgment only shows that Neal pled true to one

enhancement paragraph. Neal pled true to both enhancement paragraphs.2 We can modify the

judgment to make the record speak the truth. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2; French v. State, 830 S.W.2d

607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Therefore, we modify the judgment to reflect Neal pled true

to both enhancement paragraphs.

Also, court costs are assessed in this case as well as the two companion cases. “In a

single criminal action in which a defendant is convicted of two or more offenses . . . , the court

may assess each court cost or fee only once against the defendant.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

2
The indictment included the notice of enhancement:

STATE JAIL FELONY ENHANCEMENT - 3RD DEGREE FELONY NOTICE: AND IT IS
FURTHER PRESENTED TO SAID COURT THAT PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION OF THE
STATE JAIL FELONY OFFENSE OR STATE JAIL FELONY OFFENSES SET OUT ABOVE,
THE DEFENDANT WAS FINALLY CONVICTED OF THE STATE JAIL FELONY OFFENSE
OF BURGLARY OF A BUILDING, IN THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT
COUNTY, TEXAS, IN CAUSE NUMBER 1721507D, ON THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022,
AND, THE DEFENDANT WAS FINALLY CONVICTED OF THE STATE JAIL FELONY
OFFENSE OF BURGLARY OF A BUILDING, IN THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF
TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, IN CAUSE NUMBER 1797664, ON THE 1ST DAY OF
DECEMBER 2023,

The trial court read this paragraph after Neal pled guilty to the primary offense. Neal then pled true to this
paragraph.
3
ANN. art. 102.073(a). Here, Neal was assessed court costs in each judgment on all three offenses

arising from a single criminal action. Therefore, the duplicated court costs of $290.00 must be

deleted from the judgment of conviction in this matter. Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s

judgment to delete the court costs from the judgment.

In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm

the trial court’s judgment. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005). Thus, we affirm the trial court’s judgment, as modified.3

Scott E. Stevens
Chief Justice

Date Submitted: May 28, 2025
Date Decided: June 18, 2025

Do Not Publish

3
Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s
request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute
counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, appellant 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 (1) must be filed within thirty days from
either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court,
see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P.
68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX.
R. APP. P. 68.4.
4