Or, does this seem to be a little much?

Defendant was convicted of PCS and sentenced to 25 years. Notified the court he wished to appeal the verdict and was appointed counsel. Counsel filed an Anders brief. COA struck the Anders brief on the following grounds:

1) Judgement reflected a restitution to the DPS drug lab of $140.

2) Judgement reflected conviction under 481.123d. (This was wrong, should have been 481.115d. This was enhanced to first degree by prior conviction.)

COA orders new appellate counsel be appointed. Is this really necessary?

Do a nunc pro tunc correcting both and see if it matters.

I am going to try the Nunc Pro Tunc approach. However, were is the authorization to charge a reimbursement fee for the drug testing?

There is authority in the CCP, article 42.12, but that applies to a condition of probation.

And this backs that up. Aguilar v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas, Austin.February 23, 2007
279 S.W.3d 350. Appropriate Nunc Pro Tunc filed. Thanks