# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 14

- 00742

- CR Andres Solis VIELMA , Appellant

v. The State The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013

- 09

- 12304

- CR Honorable Bert Richardson, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice Sitting: Sandee B ryan Marion, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Jason Pulliam, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 9, 2015 AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED After a trial on the merits, Andres Solis Vielma, appellant, was found guilty of driving while intoxicated, a third degree felony, and was sentenced to ten years in prison. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. Appellant’s court

- appointed appellate attorneys have filed a brief in which they thoroughly examine the record and analyze the applicable law, but ultimately conclude that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 ( Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Appellant’s attorneys have provided appellant with copies of04

- 14

- 00742

- CR

- 2

- the brief and the motion to withdraw, and have informed him of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 85

- 86 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Although a copy of the record was provided to appellant, no pro se brief has been filed. 1 We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we agr ee that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Nichols , 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns , 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. We have the authority to modify the trial court’s judgment in an Anders appeal, and affirm the judgment as modified. Bray v. State , 179 S.W.3d 725, 726 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). In its judgment, the trial court assessed court costs against appellant in the amount of $471.00. At our request, a supplemental record was filed containing a certified bill of costs prepared by the Uva lde County District Clerk. The bill of costs shows administrative fees and costs totaling $469.00. The record contains no evidence to support an assessment of court costs in excess of $469.00. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to assess court costs in the amount of $469.00. See Hunt v. State , No. 04

- 12

- 00689

- CR, 2014 WL 2443812, at *10 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio May 28, 2014, pet. ref’d). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified. See Nichols , 954 S.W .2d at 86; Bruns , 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition

1 On April 14, 2015, we granted appellant ’s motion for access to the appellate record and ordered the district clerk to prepare and forward appellant a complete duplicate copy of the appellate record. We further notified appellant that any pro se brief would be due thirty days from the date we re ceived written notice that the district clerk sent him the appellate record. On April 16, 2015, the district clerk notified this court in writing that she had forwarded a copy of the appellate record to appellant. Therefore, appellant’s pro se brief was du e on May 16, 2015. Almost two months later, o n July 7, 2015, one of appellant’s attorneys filed a letter stating that appellant desired an extension of time to file his brief and asked her to request an extension on his behalf. On August 5, 2015, we noti fied appellant in writing that this case would be set for formal submission on September 2, 2015. To date, no pro se brief has been filed. Appellant’s request for an extension of time to file a pro se brief is denied as moot.04

- 14

- 00742

- CR

- 3

- for discretionary revi ew or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the later of (1) the date of this opinion; or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. S ee T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appe llate Procedure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68.4. Karen Angelini, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH