Court Opinion

ID: 9412394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-30 08:10:44.624123+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:16.032397
License: Public Domain

Affirmed as modified and Memorandum Opinion filed July 20, 2023.

                                     In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals
                                  ____________

                             NO. 14-22-00548-CR
                                  ____________

                     JERRY WAYNE GREER, Appellant

                                       V.

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 176th District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. 1603667

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant Jerry Wayne Greer appeals his conviction for murder. See Tex.
Pen. Code Ann. § 19.02. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he
concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the
requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a
professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable
grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1978).
      A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised
of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford
v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than
60 days have passed and no pro se brief has been filed.

      There are two minor issues regarding court costs that this court has noted in
its own review of the record, though they do not otherwise warrant reversing
appellant’s conviction or otherwise modifying his sentence, nor do they require the
assistance of counsel to resolve. See Robison v. State, Nos. 14-19-00957-CR &
14-19-00982-CR, 2020 WL 5198338, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
Sept. 1, 2020, no pet.) (citing Ferguson v. State, 435 S.W.3d 291, 295 (Tex.
App.—Waco 2014, no pet.) (acknowledging that courts are “not required to abate
[an Anders] appeal for appointment of new counsel if the judgment may be
modified”). Appellant’s sentence included being assessed $290.00 in consolidated
court costs, reflecting $185.00 in costs payable to the state comptroller, see Tex.
Loc. Gov’t Code Ann. § 133.102(a)(1), and $105.00 payable to local government,
see id. § 134.101(a). The underlying statutes only support those costs for offenses
committed on or after January 1, 2020. Id. § 133.102(c) (effective Jan. 1, 2020);
Authorlee v. State, No. 14-20-00821-CR, 2022 WL 220267, at *4 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 25, 2022, pet. ref’d). The evidence presented in the trial
court was unequivocal that appellant’s offense was committed in 2018.
Accordingly, as the applicable statute for state-payable costs only would make
appellant liable for $133.00 in costs, while no statute applies to make appellant
liable for local-payable costs for offenses committed in 2018, we will modify the
judgment and its accompanying bill of cost to reflect appellant is liable for only
$133.00 in court costs payable to the state comptroller.

                                          2
      We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the
appeal is otherwise wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no
reversible error in the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised
in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no
arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005).

      One more issue remains. Appellant filed a letter with this court requesting
that he have new appellate counsel appointed if his current appellate counsel is
permitted to withdraw. However, as we have concluded that this appeal is wholly
frivolous aside from the court-cost issues discussed above, appellant is not entitled
to new counsel to prosecute his frivolous appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
80 (1988) (noting that courts may “proceed to consider [an] appeal on the merits
without the assistance of counsel” when they determine there is “no nonfrivolous
issue for appeal”).

      The judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modified.

                                  PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Hassan, and Wilson.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

                                         3