Court Opinion

ID: 9401813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-14 06:08:50.899967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:55.376492
License: Public Domain

AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Opinion Filed June 6, 2023

                                           S   In The
                                 Court of Appeals
                          Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                      No. 05-22-00031-CR
                                      No. 05-22-00032-CR
                                      No. 05-22-00033-CR
                                      No. 05-22-00034-CR
                                      No. 05-22-00035-CR
                                      No. 05-22-00036-CR
                           DAVID RAY JAKUBIEC, Appellant
                                        V.
                            THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                 On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6
                              Dallas County, Texas
                Trial Court Cause Nos. F21-75233-X, F21-75234-X,
               F21-40264-X, F21-40265-X, F21-48147-X, F21-75235-X

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION
                    Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Kennedy1
                              Opinion by Justice Goldstein
       Appellant David Ray Jakubiec was charged in separate indictments on four

counts of aggravated assault, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of

unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 22.02(a)(2),

   1
     The Honorable Justice David J. Schenck was originally a member of this panel. The Honorable Justice
Kennedy succeeded Justice Schenck when his term expired on December 31, 2022. Justice Kennedy has
reviewed the briefs and the record.
22.02(b)(3), 29.03, 31.07. Appellant judicially confessed and entered an open plea

of guilty to the charges. The trial court found appellant guilty and, after a hearing,

assessed punishment ranging from two to twelve years’ confinement to run

concurrently. Appellant appealed to this Court in each cause. On appeal, appellant’s

court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief in which he concluded the

appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit,2 with an accompanying motion to

withdraw as appointed counsel.

        When an appellate court receives an Anders brief asserting no arguable

grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue independently by conducting

our own review of the record. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967)

(emphasizing that reviewing court, and not appointed counsel, determines, after full

examination of proceeding, whether case is “wholly frivolous”); Stafford v. State,

813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). If we conclude, after conducting an

independent review, that “appellate counsel has exercised professional diligence in

assaying the record for error” and agree the appeal is frivolous, we should grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. In re Schulman,

252 S.W.3d 403, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 689

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

    2
      The Anders brief identifies the following areas of review and determination that the appeals are
frivolous: venue, statute of limitations, appointment of counsel, the indictment, waiver of right to jury,
sufficiency of the evidence, objections and rulings, Art. 26.13 admonitions, validity of sentence and
effective assistance of counsel.
                                                  –2–
        The brief before us meets the requirements of Anders. It presents a

professional evaluation of the record showing why there are no arguable grounds to

advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978)

(determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders). Counsel attests that he

sent copies of his motion to withdraw, the brief in support of his motion, notice of

filing, and a complete record to appellant by certified mail. This Court advised

appellant by letter of his right to file a pro se response and also attached a copy of

the brief and motion to withdraw. No response was filed. See Kelley v. State, 436

S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (stating appellant has right to file pro

se response to Anders brief filed by counsel).

        We have reviewed the record in each case and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v.

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate courts’

duties in Anders cases). We agree that the appeals are frivolous and without merit.

We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals.

        In a letter brief, the State directs us to certain errors in the trial court’s

judgments that, while not reversible, are incorrect in light of the record.3 This Court

“has the power to correct and reform the judgment of the court below to make the

    3
      We note that the State advises that it reviewed the record and agreed that no reversible error was in
the record and the appeals were without merit. The State did advise of non-reversible error not addressed
in Appellant’s Anders brief—specifically the fact that Appellant was not admonished orally on the
immigration consequences of his guilty plea. However, both agree, and the record reflects that immigration
consequences were admonished in writing. The record reflects the statutory written admonishment and the
magistrate’s Vienna Convention on Consular Relations admonishment noting that Appellant is a U.S.
citizen. We agree with the State that there is no reversible error identified in the record.
                                                   –3–
record speak the truth when it has the necessary data and information to do so.”

Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d); accord

Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).

        In cause number 05-22-00032-CR (F21-75234-X), the State asserts the

judgment contains two errors: (1) incorrect description of the offense charged, and

(2) incorrect negative finding on deadly weapon. In a criminal case, the judgment

must include “[t]he offense or offenses for which the defendant was convicted” and

any “[a]ffirmative findings made pursuant to Article 42A.054(c) or (d)” of the Code

of Criminal Procedure.4 See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.01, § 1(13), (21).

Here, the judgment lists “aggravated assault/deadly weapon/deadly conduct” as the

“Offense for which Defendant Convicted.” A review of the record shows that

appellant judicially confessed and pleaded guilty to aggravated assault–reckless

discharge of firearm from a motor vehicle, as charged by the indictment and defined

under § 22.02(b)(3) of the Penal Code.5 Appellant’s confession includes that he

“knowingly discharge[d] a firearm, a deadly weapon, at and in the direction of the

vehicle of” the complainant. See Marcus v. State, No. 05-17-00655-CR, 2018 WL

4940855, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 12, 2018, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not

designated for publication). We agree with the State and modify the judgment in

    4
     Article 42A.054(c) provides: “On an affirmative finding regarding the use or exhibition of a deadly
weapon as described by Subsection (b), the trial court shall enter the finding in the judgment of the court.”
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42A.054(c).
    5
      Section 22.03(b)(3) makes it a first degree felony to knowingly discharging a firearm at a habitation,
building, or vehicle if certain additional elements are met. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.03(b)(3).
                                                    –4–
cause number 05-22-00032-CR (F21-75234-X) by (1) deleting the words

“AGGRAVATED ASSAULT/DEADLY WEAPON/DEADLY CONDUCT” under

“Offense for which Defendant Convicted” and replacing them with “AGG ASSLT

MV DISCH FRARM RKLS VEH SBI”; and (2) deleting “N/A” under “Findings on

Deadly Weapon” and replacing it with “YES, FIREARM.”

      In cause number 05-22-00033-CR (F21-40264-X), the State asserts one error:

that the space provided for a deadly weapon finding states “N/A.” The record for

this cause similarly shows that appellant judicially confessed and pleaded guilty to

a charged offense that includes a deadly-weapon allegation. See TEX. PENAL CODE

ANN. § 22.02(a)(2). We therefore modify the judgment in cause number 05-22-

00033-CR (F21-40264-X) to delete “N/A” under “Findings on Deadly Weapon” and

substitute “YES, FIREARM.”

      Finally, the State asserts that appellant was incorrectly charged duplicate court

costs in all six cases. Where a criminal defendant is convicted of two or more

offenses in the same action, the trial court may assess each court cost or fee only

once and it must be for the highest category of offense for which the defendant was

convicted. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.073. Here, appellant was convicted

of six charges in one action, but court costs were assessed against him in each case.

We agree with the State that these were duplicative and reform the judgments to

remove court costs in all but cause number 05-22-00032-CR (F21-75234-X).

Specifically, the judgments in 05-22-00031-CR (F21-75233-X), 05-22-00033-CR

                                         –5–
(F21-40264-X), 05-22-00034-CR (F21-40265-X), 05-22-00035-CR (F21-48147-

X), and 05-22-00036-CR (F21-75235-X) shall be reformed to delete court costs in

the amount of $290.00.6

        Based on our review of the record, we conclude that appellant’s appeal lacks

any basis in law or fact and is therefore frivolous. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw, modify the judgments as described above, and affirm the trial

court’s judgments as modified.

                                                         /Bonnie Lee Goldstein/
                                                         BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN
                                                         JUSTICE

Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
220031F.U05

    6
       We note that the record in each of the cases contains, in addition to a bill of costs, a document titled
“Criminal Court Fee Docket.” These fee dockets include the $290 costs listed in the judgments, plus an
additional $15 labeled as “IP PLN.” Thus, the docket states that the “Amount Assessed” against appellant
is $305. According to the legend of abbreviations provided with the fee docket, “IP PLN” stands for
“Installment Plan.” This appears to be the time payment fee that is taxed against criminal defendants who
fail to timely pay any portion of the costs included in the bill of costs. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.
art. 102.030(a) (authorizing trial courts to assess a $15 fee if the defendant fails to pay “any part of a fine,
court costs, or restitution, or another reimbursement fee” by the 31st day after the judgment is signed); see
also Shuler v. State, 650 S.W.3d 683, 689 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2022, no pet.) (construing fee docket charge
for “IP PLN” as time payment fee authorized under Article 102.030). As we explained in Shuler, an appeal
“stops the clock and suspends a defendant’s obligation to pay court costs.” Shuler, 650 S.W.3d at 689–90
(quoting Dulin v. State, 620 S.W.3d 129, 132–33 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021)). Thus it is premature to tax the
time payment fee against appellant during the pendency of his appeal. See id.
                                                     –6–
                                   S
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

DAVID RAY JAKUBIEC, Appellant                On Appeal from the Criminal District
                                             Court No. 6, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-00031-CR          V.               Trial Court Cause No. F21-75233-X.
                                             Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Goldstein. Justices Reichek and
                                             Kennedy participating.

   Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED as follows:

      We REMOVE “$290” from the space beneath “Court Costs” and INSERT
      “N/A” in its place.

Additionally, the trial court’s bill of costs is MODIFIED as follows:

      We REMOVE (1) the amount “40.00” after “CLERK’S FEE”; (2) the
      amount “1.00” after “JURY FEE”; (3) the amount “4.00” after “CCDC
      TECHNOLOGY FUND”; (4) the amount “10.00” after COURT HOUSE
      SEC FEE”; (5) the amount “185.00” after “CONS STATE FEES”; (6) the
      amount “25.00” after “COUNTY RECORDS MGT”; (7) the amount
      “25.00” after “SPECIALTY COURT”; (8) the amount “290.00” after
      “INITIAL AMOUNT DUE”; and (9) the amount “290.00” after
      “REMAINING AMOUNT DUE.” We INSERT the amount “0.00” in place
      of each said amount.

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 6th day of June, 2023.

                                       –7–
                                  S
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

DAVID RAY JAKUBIEC, Appellant                On Appeal from the Criminal District
                                             Court No. 6, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-00032-CR          V.               Trial Court Cause No. F21-75234-X.
                                             Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Goldstein. Justices Reichek and
                                             Kennedy participating.

   Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED as follows:

      (1) Under “Offense for which Defendant Convicted,” we REMOVE the
          words “AGGRAVATED ASSAULT/DEADLY WEAPON/DEADLY
          CONDUCT” and INSERT “AGG ASSLT MV DISCH FRARM RKLS
          VEH SBI” in their place; and

      (2) Under “Findings on Deadly Weapon,” we REMOVE “N/A” and insert
          “YES, FIREARM” in its place.

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 6th day of June, 2023.

                                       –8–
                                   S
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

DAVID RAY JAKUBIEC, Appellant                On Appeal from the Criminal District
                                             Court No. 6, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-00033-CR          V.               Trial Court Cause No. F21-40264-X.
                                             Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Goldstein. Justices Reichek and
                                             Kennedy participating.

   Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED as follows:

      (1) Under “Court Costs,” we REMOVE “$290” and INSERT “N/A” in its
          place; and

      (2) Under “Findings on Deadly Weapon,” we REMOVE “N/A” and
         INSERT “YES, FIREARM” in its place.

Additionally, the trial court’s bill of costs is MODIFIED as follows:

      We REMOVE (1) the amount “40.00” after “CLERK’S FEE”; (2) the
      amount “1.00” after “JURY FEE”; (3) the amount “4.00” after “CCDC
      TECHNOLOGY FUND”; (4) the amount “10.00” after COURT HOUSE
      SEC FEE”; (5) the amount “185.00” after “CONS STATE FEES”; (6) the
      amount “25.00” after “COUNTY RECORDS MGT”; (7) the amount
      “25.00” after “SPECIALTY COURT”; (8) the amount “290.00” after
      “INITIAL AMOUNT DUE”; and (9) the amount “290.00” after
      “REMAINING AMOUNT DUE.” We INSERT the amount “0.00” in place
      of each said amount.

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                       –9–
Judgment entered this 6th day of June, 2023.

                                      –10–
                                   S
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

DAVID RAY JAKUBIEC, Appellant                 On Appeal from the Criminal District
                                              Court No. 6, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-00034-CR          V.                Trial Court Cause No. F21-40265-X.
                                              Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                  Goldstein. Justices Reichek and
                                              Kennedy participating.

   Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED as follows:

      We REMOVE “$290” from the space beneath “Court Costs” and INSERT
      “N/A” in its place.

Additionally, the trial court’s bill of costs is MODIFIED as follows:

      We REMOVE (1) the amount “40.00” after “CLERK’S FEE”; (2) the
      amount “1.00” after “JURY FEE”; (3) the amount “4.00” after “CCDC
      TECHNOLOGY FUND”; (4) the amount “10.00” after COURT HOUSE
      SEC FEE”; (5) the amount “185.00” after “CONS STATE FEES”; (6) the
      amount “25.00” after “COUNTY RECORDS MGT”; (7) the amount
      “25.00” after “SPECIALTY COURT”; (8) the amount “290.00” after
      “INITIAL AMOUNT DUE”; and (9) the amount “290.00” after
      “REMAINING AMOUNT DUE.” We INSERT the amount “0.00” in place
      of each said amount.

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 6th day of June, 2023.

                                       –11–
                                   S
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

DAVID RAY JAKUBIEC, Appellant                 On Appeal from the Criminal District
                                              Court No. 6, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-00035-CR          V.                Trial Court Cause No. F21-48147-X.
                                              Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                  Goldstein. Justices Reichek and
                                              Kennedy participating.

   Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED as follows:

      We REMOVE “$290” from the space beneath “Court Costs” and INSERT
      “N/A” in its place.

Additionally, the trial court’s bill of costs is MODIFIED as follows:

      We REMOVE (1) the amount “40.00” after “CLERK’S FEE”; (2) the
      amount “1.00” after “JURY FEE”; (3) the amount “4.00” after “CCDC
      TECHNOLOGY FUND”; (4) the amount “10.00” after COURT HOUSE
      SEC FEE”; (5) the amount “185.00” after “CONS STATE FEES”; (6) the
      amount “25.00” after “COUNTY RECORDS MGT”; (7) the amount
      “25.00” after “SPECIALTY COURT”; (8) the amount “290.00” after
      “INITIAL AMOUNT DUE”; and (9) the amount “290.00” after
      “REMAINING AMOUNT DUE.” We INSERT the amount “0.00” in place
      of each said amount.

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 6th day of June, 2023.

                                       –12–
                                   S
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

DAVID RAY JAKUBIEC, Appellant                 On Appeal from the Criminal District
                                              Court No. 6, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-00036-CR          V.                Trial Court Cause No. F21-75235-X.
                                              Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                  Goldstein. Justices Reichek and
                                              Kennedy participating.

   Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED as follows:

      We REMOVE “$290” from the space beneath “Court Costs” and INSERT
      “N/A” in its place.

Additionally, the trial court’s bill of costs is MODIFIED as follows:

      We REMOVE (1) the amount “40.00” after “CLERK’S FEE”; (2) the
      amount “1.00” after “JURY FEE”; (3) the amount “4.00” after “CCDC
      TECHNOLOGY FUND”; (4) the amount “10.00” after COURT HOUSE
      SEC FEE”; (5) the amount “185.00” after “CONS STATE FEES”; (6) the
      amount “25.00” after “COUNTY RECORDS MGT”; (7) the amount
      “25.00” after “SPECIALTY COURT”; (8) the amount “290.00” after
      “INITIAL AMOUNT DUE”; and (9) the amount “290.00” after
      “REMAINING AMOUNT DUE.” We INSERT the amount “0.00” in place
      of each said amount.

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 6th day of June, 2023.

                                       –13–