Julian Lawrence Navarro v. State ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                Fourth Court of Appeals
    San Antonio, Texas
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    No. 04-13-00707-CR
    Julian Lawrence NAVARRO,
    Appellant
    v.
    The STATE of Texas,
    Appellee
    From the County Court at Law No. 2, Guadalupe County, Texas
    Trial Court No. CCL-12-0325
    Honorable Frank Follis, Judge Presiding
    Opinion by:       Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
    Sitting:          Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
    Karen Angelini, Justice
    Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
    Delivered and Filed: November 5, 2014
    AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
    Julian Navarro was convicted by a jury of resisting arrest. The court sentenced Navarro to
    one year in county jail, assessed a $4,000 fine, and imposed $302 in court costs and $1,015 in
    court-appointed attorney fees. Navarro appealed.
    Navarro’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional
    evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), and a
    motion to withdraw. In the brief, counsel raises no arguable appellate issues, and concludes this
    appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the Anders requirements. See id.; see also
    04-13-00707-CR
    High v. State, 
    573 S.W.2d 807
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Gainous v. State, 
    436 S.W.2d 137
    (Tex.
    Crim. App. 1969). As required, counsel provided Navarro with a copy of the brief and motion to
    withdraw, and informed him of his right to review the record and file his own pro se brief. See
    Nichols v. State, 
    954 S.W.2d 83
    , 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); see also Bruns
    v. State, 
    924 S.W.2d 176
    , 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Navarro did not file
    a pro se brief.
    After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude there is no reversible error and
    agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 826-
    27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). However, we also conclude the judgment assessing court-appointed
    attorney’s fees as costs against Navarro should be modified because the record reflects he is
    indigent. A “defendant who is determined by the court to be indigent is presumed to remain
    indigent for the remainder of the proceedings in the case unless a material change in the
    defendant’s financial circumstances occurs.” Cates v. State, 
    402 S.W.3d 250
    , 251 (Tex. Crim.
    App. 2013); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.04(p) (West Supp. 2014). The record in this
    case does not support a determination that Navarro’s financial circumstances or ability to pay
    attorney’s fees changed after the trial court first determined him to be indigent. See 
    Cates, 402 S.W.3d at 252
    . The proper remedy is to reform the judgment and to delete the attorney’s fees from
    the bill of costs as well as any ensuing order permitting withdrawals from the appellant’s inmate
    account. See 
    id. at 251-52.
    Therefore, we modify the judgment to delete the assessment of attorney’s fees against
    Navarro. The bill of costs and any order to withdraw funds from appellant’s inmate trust account
    are modified to delete the requirement that he pay $1,015 in court-appointed attorney fees. We
    grant the motion to withdraw filed by Navarro’s appellate counsel and affirm the trial court’s
    judgment as modified.
    -2-
    04-13-00707-CR
    No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Navarro wish to seek further review of
    this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition
    for discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for
    discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last
    timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition
    for discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas
    Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3.
    Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas
    Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
    Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
    DO NOT PUBLISH
    -3-