Court Opinion

ID: 3078349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:33:46.858315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:31:55.750988
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals
                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                             ___________________
                                 NO. 09-11-00486-CR
                             ___________________

                       BYRON LEON BERKLEY, Appellant

                                          V.

                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
____________________________________________________________________                  _

                   On Appeal from the 435th District Court
                        Montgomery County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. 11-03-03054 CR
____________________________________________________________________                  _

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A jury convicted Byron Leon Berkley of engaging in organized criminal activity,

enhanced, and the trial court sentenced Berkley to forty-five years in prison. Berkley’s

appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the

record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87
S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.

1978). On September 6, 2012, we granted an extension of time for Berkley to file a pro

se brief. We received no response from Berkley. We have determined that this appeal is

wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the clerk’s record and the reporter’s

                                           1
record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. We find it unnecessary to

order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

       However, according to the judgment, the trial court assessed $4,330.97 in

attorney’s fees. The record does not indicate that Berkley has the financial resources to

enable him to pay attorney’s fees.     See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 26.04(p),

26.05(g) (West Supp. 2012); see also Roberts v. State, 327 S.W.3d 880, 883-84 (Tex.

App.—Beaumont 2010, no pet.). Accordingly, we modify the judgment to delete the

$4,330.97 in attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified. 1

       AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

                                                 ________________________________
                                                        STEVE McKEITHEN
                                                            Chief Justice

Submitted on December 28, 2012
Opinion Delivered February 6, 2013
Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

       1
        Berkley may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                            2