### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00059- CR

William De wayn e Nor ris, Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 27TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 696 66, H ONO RAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Following a bench trial, appellant Wil liam Dewa y n e No rr i s was convicted of the offe nse of ag g ravated robber y and sentenc ed to forty y ear s’ imprisonment. I n two issues on appea l, Norris argues that (1) the evidenc e is insuf fi cient to prove that he has the financ ial resour ces to pay his court-a

ppointed attorney ’s fee s as order ed in the judgme nt of conviction and (2) the judgme nt incorre ctly rec ites that h e p l ea d ed “guilty ” to the char g ed offe nse. The State conce des err or on both points. We will modify the judgme nt to delete the require ment that Norris pay attorney ’s fee s and to re flec t that N orris pleade d “not g uilty ” to the char g ed offe nse. As modified, we w ill affirm the judg ment. The rec ord ref lects that afte r Norris had been arr ested for the of fense of ag g ravated robber y , he filled out a financ ial questionnaire. Ba sed upon the informatio n that Norris provided in the questionnaire, the district court appointed an attorney to repr esent him . FollowingNorris’sconviction, the district court filed a “Notice to I ndige nt Def ense Depa

rtment,” indicating that “[t] he Court has remove d a previous appointed attorney and I ndige nt Def ense Offic e must a

ppoint a new attorney from the Approve d Attorney Wheel for this level offe nse.” An attorney was subsequently appointed to repr esent Norris on appea l. Despite finding Norris indige nt, the district court, in its judgme nt of c o n v i ct ion, order ed Norris to pay attorney ’s fees after his rele ase from incar cer ation.

“A defenda

nt who i s deter

mined by the court to be indi g ent i s pres u m ed to rema in indige nt for the rema inder of the proce eding s in the case unless a materia l chang e in the defe ndant’s financ ial circ umstances occur s.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 26.04(p); Maye r v. State , 309 S.W .3d 552, 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The rec ord ref lects that the district court d et ermined that Norris wa s indige nt, and we find nothing in the record to support a finding t hat Norris’s financ ial circ umstances have materia lly chang ed since that finding was made. There fore , no evidenc e supports the district court’s or der r equiring appellant to pay attorney ’s fees. SeeTex. Code Crim. Proc. ar t. 26.05(g ). We sustain Norris’s f irst issue. The rec ord also ref

lects that Norris pleade d “not g uilty ” to the char g ed offe nse prior to trial. Neve rtheless, the judgme nt of conviction err oneously states that Norris pleade d g uilty

. We sustain Norris’s sec ond issue.

This Court has the authority to modify incorre ct judgme nts when t h e nece ssary information is available to do so. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State , 865 S.W .2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); French v. State , 830 S.W .2d 607, 609 (Tex

. C ri m . Ap p. 1992). Acc ording ly , we modify the judgme nt of conviction to delete the require ment that Norris pay attorney ’s fee s afte r his rele ase from incar cer ation, and we further m o d i fy t h e judgme nt to

2ref

lect that Norris pleade d “not g u i l t y ” to the char g ed offe nse. As modified, the judgme nt of conviction is aff

irmed.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and Rose Modified and, a s Modified, Aff irmed Filed: Jul y

10, 2013 Do Not Publish

3