IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-12-00347-CR

MICHAEL LYNN WALLS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 220th District Court

Hamilton County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR-07586

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Michael Lynn Walls pleaded guilty to possession of less than one 

gram of methamphetamine and stipulated and pleaded true to enhancement 

allegations. Under a plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Appellant to ten years in 

prison and assessed a $1,000 fine, court costs, and $500 for court-appointed attorney’s 

fees. The original judgment, signed on July 29, 2010, assessed the $1,000 fine, $314 in 

court costs, $140 for restitution, and $500 for court-appointed attorney’s fees.

On May 16, 2012, the trial court signed an order to withdraw funds that directed 
Walls v. State Page 2

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to withdraw a percentage of funds from 

Appellant’s inmate trust account to pay the assessed “court costs, fees and/or fines 

and/or restitution.” Appellant filed a pro se motion for entry of judgment nunc pro 

tunc requesting deletion of the $1,000 fine and the $500 for court-appointed attorney’s 

fees. Appellant acknowledged previous correspondence with the trial court indicating 

that the trial court would waive the $500 assessment for court-appointed attorney’s fees

because of Appellant’s indigence, and Appellant asserted that the $1,000 fine was 

improper because it was not orally pronounced at the imposition of sentence. The 

reporter’s record from the plea hearing reflects that the trial court did pronounce the 

$1,000 fine at the time of sentencing.

The trial court entered a second nunc pro tunc judgment1 that deleted only the 

$500 court-appointed attorney’s fees; it did not delete the $1,000 fine. Appellant filed a 

pro se notice of appeal of the second nunc pro tunc judgment, and he was subsequently 

appointed counsel in this appeal by the trial court.

A nunc pro tunc judgment is an appealable order, but the appeal is limited to the 

propriety of the nunc pro tunc judgment, and we do not have authority to review the 

underlying conviction or the plea bargain’s validity. Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894, 

900, 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).

Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an 

Anders brief, asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in 

 

1 A nunc pro tunc judgment was entered a month after the original judgment, but it is not germane to this 

appeal.
Walls v. State Page 3

his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 

18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Although informed of his right to do so, Appellant did not file a 

pro se response to the Anders brief.

In an Anders case, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, [] 

decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; accord Stafford v. 

State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or 

“without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 

U.S. 429, 439 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988).

2

We have conducted an independent review of the record, and because we find 

this appeal to be wholly frivolous, we affirm the judgment. We grant appointed 

counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Appellant. Notwithstanding this 

grant, appointed counsel must send Appellant a copy of our decision, notify him of his 

right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter 

certifying counsel’s compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX. R.

APP. P. 48.4; see also Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673-74 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

 

2 We do not address whether the trial court’s judgment nunc pro tunc was more favorable than the 

judgment the State was entitled to enforce or whether the trial court had the authority or jurisdiction to 

modify the judgment in the manner that it did.
Walls v. State Page 4

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed May 9, 2013

Do not publish

[CR25]