Brooks v. State of Texas - Evading Arrest, 5-Year Sentence, Costs Corrected
Summary
Deandre Deshawn Brooks was sentenced to five years in prison for evading arrest in a motor vehicle. The Texas 10th District Court of Appeals found the appeal frivolous but corrected court costs from $1,744 to $404, and granted appointed counsel's motion to withdraw. The judgment was affirmed as modified.
About this source
The Texas Courts of Appeals are intermediate appellate courts that hear every appeal from Texas district and county courts before cases reach the Texas Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals. Together they publish around 290 opinions a month across civil, criminal, family, probate, and administrative cases. Texas's economy and legal volume mean the courts generate significant precedent on energy, oil and gas, commercial real estate, employment, and family law that affects multistate clients. GovPing tracks every published opinion via CourtListener's mirror, with case name, parties, court division, and outcome. Watch this if you litigate in Texas, advise on energy or land disputes, or track how Texas courts treat federal questions in commercial cases.
What changed
The Texas 10th District Court of Appeals modified the judgment to reflect court costs of $404 instead of $1,744, based on the certified bill of costs filed by the trial court clerk. The conviction and five-year sentence for evading arrest were affirmed. The court found the appeal frivolous under Anders v. California and granted appointed counsel's motion to withdraw.
For affected parties, this case illustrates the appellate correction process for clerical cost-assessment errors in criminal judgments. While the underlying conviction and sentence stand, defendants and their counsel should verify that certified bills of costs match the amounts listed in trial court judgments to avoid similar appellate corrections.
Archived snapshot
Apr 24, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Jump To
Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
April 23, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Deandre Deshawn Brooks v. the State of Texas
Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 10-25-00309-CR
- Nature of Suit: Evading Arrest
Disposition: Modified/Reformed and Affirmed
Disposition
Modified/Reformed and Affirmed
Lead Opinion
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
Related changes
Get daily alerts for Texas Court of Appeals
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from TX Courts.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Texas Court of Appeals publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.