NO. 07-11-00130-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

SEPTEMBER 9, 2011

FLAVIO CHARLES PATINO, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 FROM THE 110TH DISTRICT COURT OF BRISCOE COUNTY;

NO. 1135; HONORABLE WILLIAM P. SMITH, JUDGE

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

**MEMORANDUM OPINION**

	Appellant, Flavio Charles Patino, was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm[footnoteRef:1] and sentenced to confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for 10 years.  Appellant gave notice of appeal.  We will modify and affirm the judgment of the trial court. [1:  See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.04(a)(2) (West 2011).] 

	Appellants attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967).  In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Id. at 744-45.  In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial courts judgment.  Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a *pro se* response in this matter.  Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  The Court has also advised appellant of his right to file a *pro se* response.  Appellant filed a response.  By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous.  We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal.  SeePenson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).  Additionally, we have reviewed the grounds set forth in appellant’s response.  Id.  We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

	We note the trial court’s judgment contains a special order that appellant repay attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,120.00 to Briscoe County.  The record contains no determination by the court of appellant’s ability to pay such fees.  TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.05(g) (West Supp. 2010).  Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment by deleting the language ordering appellant to repay attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,120.00.  *See Mayer v. State*, 274 S.W.3d 898, 902 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 2008), *aff’d,* 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) (modified judgment to delete like order).  

	Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed as modified. [footnoteRef:2]  TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b). [2:  Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellants right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.] 

							Mackey K. Hancock

                                    Justice

Do not publish. 

2