In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-17-00142-CR 

GARY FLORES, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 452nd District Court 

McCulloch County, Texas1 

Trial Court No. 6125, Honorable Robert R. Hofmann, Presiding 

 

August 16, 2018 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. 

On January 27, 2017, appellant, Gary Flores, entered an open plea of guilty to the 

offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child.

2

 After a punishment hearing, the trial 

court accepted appellant’s plea and sentenced him to twenty-six years’ incarceration in 

 

1 Pursuant to the Texas Supreme Court docket equalization efforts, this case was transferred to 

this Court from the Third Court of Appeals. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013). Should a 

conflict exist between the precedent of the Third Court of Appeals and this Court on any relevant issue, this 

appeal will be decided in accordance with the precedent of the transferor court. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.

2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021 (West Supp. 2017).
2

the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a $1,000 fine. 

Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an 

Anders3 brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and, as 

modified, affirm the judgment.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has conducted a 

conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no 

reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman, 252 

S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 

807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the 

controlling authorities, there are no reversible errors in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel 

notified appellant by letter of his motion to withdraw; provided him a copy of the motion, 

Anders brief, and appellate record; and informed him of his right to file a pro se response.

See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed 

counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief).

By letter, this Court also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response to counsel’s 

Anders brief. Appellant has filed a pro se response. The State did not file a brief.

In the present case, appellant pled guilty to the offense of aggravated sexual 

assault of a child, signed written admonishments and a stipulation of evidence, and 

evidence was offered during the punishment hearing that was sufficient to establish 

appellant’s guilt. By his Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where 

reversible error may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have 

 

3 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
3

independently examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous 

issues that were preserved in the trial court which might support this appeal but, like 

counsel, we have found no such issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. 

Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 

436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). After carefully reviewing the appellate

record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se response, we conclude there are no 

plausible grounds for appellate review.

Counsel does identify that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment’s 

assessment of court-appointed attorney’s fees against appellant. To assess attorney’s 

fees in a judgment, a trial court must determine that the defendant has the financial 

resources enabling him to offset in whole or in part the costs of legal services provided. 

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.05(g) (West Supp. 2017); Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 

552, 555-56 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Once a criminal defendant has been found to be 

indigent, he is presumed to remain indigent for the remainder of the proceedings unless 

a material change in the defendant’s financial resources occurs. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 26.04(p) (West Supp. 2017). For attorney’s fees to be assessed, the record 

must reflect some factual basis to support the trial court’s determination. See Barrera v. 

State, 291 S.W.3d 515, 518 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, no pet.) (per curiam).

In the present case, appellant was found to be indigent on May 16, 2016, and the 

trial court appointed counsel to represent him. In the judgment entered after appellant 

was convicted, the trial court ordered appellant to repay $1,295 in court-appointed 

attorney’s fees. On February 14, 2017, the trial court made a second finding that 

appellant was indigent and appointed him appellate counsel. Nothing in the record 
4

indicates that appellant’s financial status ever changed. In the absence of a finding that 

appellant has the present ability to pay court-appointed attorney’s fees, the trial court’s 

order violates article 26.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Cates v. State, 402 

S.W.3d 250, 251-52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Because there is no record evidence 

establishing that appellant had a present ability to pay the cost of his court-appointed 

attorney’s fees, it is appropriate for us to modify the judgment to delete the order that 

appellant pay $1,295 in attorney’s fees. Bruce v. State, No. 07-12-00347-CR, 2013 Tex. 

App. LEXIS 31, at *6 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 3, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication); Nelson v. State, No. 03-11-00022-CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 

8999, at *7 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 9, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication).

We modify the judgment to delete the assessment of $1,295 in attorney’s fees. 

We affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.4 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b).

Judy C. Parker

 Justice

 

4 Even though appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review 

upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal, counsel must comply with 

Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides that counsel shall within five days 

after this opinion is handed down, send appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together with 

notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 

n.22 & 411 n.35. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature, 

does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to 

withdraw. Id. at 411 n.33.