## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No s . 07
- 19
- 00153
- CR 07
- 19
- 00154
- CR
JAWONE ONEAL LEE RILES , APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 181st District Court Randall County , Texas Trial Court No s . 27 , 687
- B , 28 , 575
- B , Honorable John B. Board , Presiding



### November 7 , 2019 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN , C.J. , and PIRTLE and PARKER , JJ. Jawone Oneal Lee Riles , appellant , appeals the trial court ’ s judgment s by which he was convicted for first
- degree burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit robbery in appellate cause number 07
- 19
- 00153
- CR and for second
- degree burglary of a habitation in appellate cause number 07
- 19
- 00154
- CR

. Following his open pleas of guilty to the State ’ s allegations , appellant was sentenced to forty years ’ and ten years ’ imprisonment , respectively . The sentences were to be served concurrently.2

A ppellant ’ s a ppointed counsel later f iled motion s to withdraw and an Anders 1 brief encompassing both convictions with the court. T h erein , counsel certified that , after he diligently searched the record s , the appeal s w ere without merit. Accompanying the brief s and motion s is a copy of a lett er informing appellant of counsel ’ s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant ’ s right to file a response , pro se. C ounsel also certified that he mailed to appellant copies of the appellate record. By letter dated August 23 , 2019 , this Co urt also notified appellant of his right to file his own response by September 23 , 2019. On appellant ’ s motion , this Court granted appellant an extension of time to file his pro se response

. 2 The extended deadline was designated as October 31 , 2019. To date , this C ourt has not received a pro se response or any other communication from appellant. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders , appellate counsel discussed potential areas for appeal , which included the propriet y of trial counsel ’ s failure to file an application for community supervision and the constitutionality of the punishments imposed for the convictions. Counsel also provided analysis and authority explaining why neither issue had merit. W e then conducted our own review of the appellate record s for issues of arguable merit pursuant to In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) , and Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

1 See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 , 744

– 45 , 87 S. Ct. 1396 , 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
2 Appellant indicated that he wanted a copy of the appellate record s . We ask ed his counsel to certify that they had been sent to appellant , and counsel so certified to this C ourt by September 30 , 2019

. Attached to his certification was a copy of the pertinent USPS return receipt and tracking number . It revealed that the record s were delivered on August 23 , 20 19 , to “ Front Desk/Reception/Mail Room. ” The exact address of delivery was unmentioned , as was the name of the actual recipient. Our ensuing letter of September 30 , 2019 to appellant (addressed to the Fort Stockton Unit , 1536 IH
- 10 East , Fort Stockton , TX 79735) informed him of counsel ’ s certification and the date by which he had to file a pro se response to the motion to withdraw . The C ourt heard nothing else from appellant . Nor has he indicated that counsel ’ s certification of mailing was inaccurate in a ny way or that he had yet to receive the appellate records.3

(en banc). No ne were found , other than a matter regarding the bill of costs assessed in Cause No. 27 , 687
- B . It included , among other things , the sum of $3 , 875 as “ court appointed attorney ’ s fees. ” Yet , it also indicated that there existed an unpaid balance of

“ 0.00 ” for all costs. Having been found indigent a nd that status having remained through judgment , appellant was not subject to an assessment for such fees. See Simmons v. State , No. 07
- 17
- 00127
- CR , 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 2760 , at *12

– 13 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo Apr. 5 , 2019 , no pet. ) (mem. op. , not designated for publication) (citing T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. arts. 26.04(p) , 26.05(g) (West Supp. 2018)) . Thus , those attorney ’ s fees are redacted from the court costs and bill of costs. He is not obligated to pay them , now or in the future. Accordingly , we grant appellate counsel ’ s motions to withdraw , affirm the trial court ’ s judgments of conviction , and sua sponte extend the deadline by which to request
a motion for rehearing to December 13 , 2019

. 3

Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publi sh.

3 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.