Court Opinion

ID: 9960469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 14:12:32.885632+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:34.996704
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                         No. 04-23-00079-CR

                                       Alfredo MONTEJANO,
                                              Appellant

                                                 v.

                                         The STATE of Texas,
                                               Appellee

                     From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                   Trial Court No. 2022CR5078
                              Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                  Irene Rios, Justice
                  Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 10, 2024

ABATED AND REMANDED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

           In this appeal, court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to

withdraw. Because there is an arguable ground for appeal, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw

and abate this appeal.

           We withdraw our November 14, 2023 submission date; the appeal will be reset for

submission at a later date. We remand the cause for the trial court to appoint new appellate counsel.
                                                                                    04-23-00079-CR

                                         BACKGROUND

       A jury found Alfredo Montejano guilty of evading arrest or detention while using a vehicle,

a third-degree felony. On January 17, 2023, the trial court sentenced Montejano to four years and

six months’ confinement and imposed court costs of $430.

       Court-appointed counsel Julie B. Pollock filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). In the

brief, counsel asserts that she reviewed the entire record and concluded there were no nonfrivolous

points of error. See Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 1997, no pet.). Counsel also filed a motion to withdraw.

                                     INDEPENDENT REVIEW

       “Under Anders, after receiving a brief claiming that there are no arguable grounds for

appeal, the reviewing court must review the record to make an independent determination.”

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (emphasis removed); accord

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.

       Having conducted an independent review of the record, we conclude there is an arguable

ground of appeal. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511; Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85.

A.     Article 42.15 Requirement for Inquiry on the Record

       The record does not show that the trial court complied with the statutory requirement to

conduct an inquiry on the record regarding the defendant’s ability to pay court costs.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, during or immediately after
       imposing a sentence in a case in which the defendant entered a plea in open court
       as provided by Article 27.13, 27.14(a), or 27.16(a), a court shall inquire on the
       record whether the defendant has sufficient resources or income to immediately
       pay all or part of the fine and costs.

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.15(a-1) (emphasis added) (effective Sept. 1, 2021); Cruz v.

State, No. 14-21-00454-CR, 2023 WL 3236888, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 4,

                                               -2-
                                                                                          04-23-00079-CR

2023, pet. granted) (recognizing the trial court’s duty “to act sua sponte and hold an ability-to-pay

inquiry when a fine or costs are imposed on a defendant in the judgment”).

B.      Optional Statutory Waiver

        “A defendant may waive the requirement for the inquiry described by Subsection (a-1) to

be on the record.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.15(a-2). The record is silent on whether

Ramos waived the requirement for the inquiry to be on the record. See id.

C.      Error Preservation

        The record does not show that Montejano asserted that he was unable to pay the court costs.

Cf. Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385, 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (recognizing that “a claim

challenging the bases for the imposition of court costs [may be raised] for the first time on appeal”).

Compare Cruz, 2023 WL 3236888, at *4 (concluding “that a defendant’s right to an ability-to-pay

inquiry is ‘fundamental to the proper functioning of our adjudicatory system’ [and holding that an]

appellant was not required to preserve this complaint for appeal through objection” (quoting

Proenza v. State, 541 S.W.3d 786, 799 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017))), with Rodgers v. State, No. 06-

23-00101-CR, 2023 WL 6379018, at *2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Oct. 2, 2023, no pet.) (concluding

that a failure to timely “object to the trial court’s imposition of fines and court costs ‘at the earliest

possible opportunity’ [did not] preserve [appellant’s] complaint for [appellate] review” (quoting

Davison v. State, 602 S.W.3d 625, 648 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2020, pet. ref’d))).

D.      Article 43.035(a)’s Applicability

        The record is also silent on whether the trial court conducted an inquiry on the record after

it pronounced its January 17, 2023 judgment. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 43.035(a)

(requiring the trial court, on the defendant’s request, to “hold a hearing to determine whether that

portion of the judgment imposes an undue hardship on the defendant”); id. art. 43.035(e) (vesting

the trial court with continuing “jurisdiction for the purpose of making a determination under this

                                                   -3-
                                                                                      04-23-00079-CR

article”); Sloan v. State, 676 S.W.3d 240, 242 n.2 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2023, no pet.) (citing TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 43.035(a), (e)) (noting a defendant’s right to request a hearing and

the trial court’s jurisdiction to hold it); see also Clifton v. State, No. 01-22-00641-CR, 2023 WL

5437181, at *25 n.33 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 24, 2023, pet. filed) (mem. op.)

(“Because we are remanding the case to the trial court to reassess the amount of court costs, the

trial court will have an opportunity to inquire on the record into [the defendant’s] ability to pay

costs and make any modifications to the judgment it deems necessary.”).

E.     Arguable Ground of Appeal

       We have not previously decided the question which the record currently before us presents:

Is it reversible error if the record does not show that the trial court conducted an inquiry on the

record regarding the defendant’s ability to pay court costs? See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.

42.15(a-1); TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2; Cruz, 2023 WL 3236888, at *4.

       We have not found any mandatory authority on this question from the Court of Criminal

Appeals, and there is not a clear, well-established consensus among our sister courts. E.g., Cruz,

2023 WL 3236888, at *5 (criticizing the analysis in Hernandez-Faced v. State, 661 S.W.3d 630,

638 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2023, pet. ref’d)); Rodgers, 2023 WL 6379018, at *2.

       Accordingly, this is an arguable ground of appeal. See Almeida v. State, No. 04-22-00669-

CR, 2024 WL 172588, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 17, 2024, no pet. h.) (per curiam).

F.     Scope of Opinion

       This opinion identifies an arguable ground of appeal. See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86. In

it, we have cited statutes, rules, and opinions which may be applicable to the question before us.

The cited authorities are not an exhaustive list: other statutes, rules, or opinions may apply.

Further, by citing opinions, we are neither adopting nor rejecting their reasoning.

                                                -4-
                                                                                     04-23-00079-CR

       On remand, the new appellate counsel must brief the issue we have identified. See id. Our

identification of an arguable ground of appeal is not a predetermination that this record presents

reversible error; it is an opportunity for Appellant to brief the identified issue “as well as any

additional grounds that the attorney discovers,” and for the State to respond. See id.

                                      ANDERS PROCEDURE

       In her Anders brief, court-appointed counsel advised this court that she had reviewed the

record but concluded that there were no arguable points of error. Because our independent review

has determined there is an arguable ground of appeal, we grant Julie B. Pollock’s motion to

withdraw. See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86.

       We withdraw our November 14, 2023 submission date. After the briefs are filed, we will

reset this case for submission.

       We abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court. We order the trial court to

appoint a different attorney to represent Appellant on appeal and notify this court of the

appointment within fifteen days of our order. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2005); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.

       If Appellant wishes to prosecute this appeal, new appellate counsel must file a brief that

addresses the issue we have identified and any other arguable grounds for appeal. See Bledsoe,

178 S.W.3d at 827; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.

                                                  PER CURIAM

Do not publish

                                                -5-