David Louie Hearn v. State ( 2012 )

NO. 07-12-00324-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
DECEMBER 28, 2012
JOEL DUANE CORDERO, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 54,639-E; HONORABLE DOUGLAS WOODBURN, JUDGE
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Joel Duane Cordero, entered a plea of guilty, pursuant to a plea
bargain, to the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child. 1 Pursuant to the plea
agreement, appellant was not adjudicated guilty, but was placed on community
supervision for a period of ten years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to
adjudicate appellant guilty. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations contained in the
State’s motion and appellant was sentenced to confinement in the Institutional Division
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021(a)(1)(B) (West Supp. 2012).
of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for 15 years. Appellant gave notice of
appeal. We will modify and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his
motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in
his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be
predicated. Id. at 744–45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813
(Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling
authorities, there is no error in the trial court’s judgment. Additionally, counsel has
certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to
withdraw, and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in
this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The Court
has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed
a response. By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly
support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these
grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether
there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824
(Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with
counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
We note the trial court’s judgment contains an order that appellant repay
attorney’s fees “as per the attached bill of costs.” The bill of costs reflects total
2
attorney’s fees of $5,788.72. However, the record demonstrates that appellant has
been considered indigent throughout these proceedings, and there is no other evidence
or determination by the trial court that the appellant has the ability to pay such fees.
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.05(g) (West Supp. 2012). Accordingly, we modify
the trial court’s judgment by deleting the language ordering appellant to repay attorney’s
fees in the amount of $5,788.72. See Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552, 553
(Tex.Crim.App. 2010).
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court’s
judgment is affirmed as modified. 2
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.
2
Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client
a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a
pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
3