Court Opinion

ID: 9925495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-20 07:11:02.375889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:50.479092
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed January 18, 2024

                                       In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                     __________

                                 No. 11-22-00319-CR
                                     __________

                      TIMOTHY SALINAS, Appellant

                                        V.

                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                     On Appeal from the 106th District Court
                             Dawson County, Texas
                         Trial Court Cause No. 21-8455

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Appellant, Timothy Salinas, originally pled guilty to the second-degree felony
offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 22.02 (West 2023). On August 18, 2021, the trial court deferred finding Appellant
guilty, and placed him on deferred adjudication for a period of four years. As
conditions of his community supervision, Appellant was required to follow all state
and federal laws, report to his community supervision officer, and pay a $100 fine,
court costs, and $600 reimbursement fees.
      The State subsequently filed an application to adjudicate guilt, alleging that
Appellant committed eight violations of his community supervision conditions. On
October 24, 2022, the trial court held a hearing on the application, during which the
State presented evidence, and Appellant testified that the allegations were “[p]artly”
true. The trial court found that Appellant violated the conditions as alleged, revoked
his community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and assessed Appellant’s
punishment of confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice for a term of twenty years.
      Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this
court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are
no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of
the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both
the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right
to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised
Appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.   Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2014); 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).
      Appellant filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief in which he
requested the appointment of another attorney on appeal, but did not address the
merits of the case. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we

                                          2
have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable
grounds for appeal exist. 1
       However, the judgment adjudicating Appellant guilty orders payment of $600
in reimbursement fees for court-appointed counsel that was previously ordered when
he was placed on deferred adjudication.               Although the trial court found that
Appellant had the financial resources to pay said reimbursement fees in the order
deferring adjudication of guilt, the final judgment adjudicating Appellant guilty
contains no such finding.
       The record establishes that prior to the revocation hearing, Appellant was
found to be indigent. Under Article 26.05(g) of the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure, a trial court shall order the reimbursement of court-appointed attorney
fees only if “the judge determines that a defendant has financial resources that
enable the defendant to offset in part or in whole the costs of the legal services
provided to the defendant . . . including any expenses and costs.” TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. ANN. art. 26.05(g) (West Supp. 2023).
       Because the record does not show the trial court determined, upon re-ordering
the payment of reimbursement fees, that Appellant had the financial resources or
ability to pay the appointed attorney’s fees, the trial court erred by assessing them.
See Cates v. State, 402 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (concluding
judgment should be reformed to remove assessment of attorney’s fees because there
was no finding in the record that an indigent defendant was able to repay the costs
of court-appointed counsel). We therefore modify the judgment to delete the
reimbursement fees.

       1
        We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to
Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

                                                 3
      We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the
trial court as modified.

                                               JOHN M. BAILEY
                                               CHIEF JUSTICE

January 18, 2024
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

                                         4