Landon Louis Wicker v. State ( 2013 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-13-00282-CR
Landon Louis WICKER,
Appellant
v.
The State of TexasAppellee
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2011CR4528B
Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 20, 2013
MODIFIED; AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
Appellant pled no contest, pursuant to a plea bargain, to aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon. The trial court assessed punishment at ten years’ confinement. Appellant’s court-
appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record and
demonstrating there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel concludes the appeal is
without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Appellant was informed of his right to review the record and of his right to file a pro se brief.
Although appellant was granted an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief, he has not done
04-13-00282-CR
so. After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without
merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment, and we GRANT appellate counsel’s
motion to withdraw. 1 Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.CSan Antonio 1997, no pet.);
Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.CSan Antonio 1996, no pet.).
However, although we affirm the trial court’s judgment, we also conclude that with respect
to the trial court’s award of court costs plus attorney’s fees, the trial court’s judgment should be
modified. The record shows the trial court assessed attorney’s fees despite its finding that appellant
is indigent. 2 The Bill of Costs indicates the amount of attorney’s fees to be assessed against
appellant is “TBD” (“to be determined”). The evidence in the record does not support a finding
that appellant’s ability to pay attorney’s fees changed after the trial court first determined him to
be indigent. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 26.04(p) (West Supp. 2012); Roberts v. State,
327 S.W.3d 880, 883-84 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2010, no pet.). Therefore, we modify the
judgment to delete the assessment of attorney’s fees against appellant. See Solomon v. State, 392
S.W.3d 309, 311 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.).
We affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified.
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Do not publish
1
No substitute counsel will be appointed. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 n.22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must
either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review.
Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last
timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary
review must be filed with Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary
review must comply with the requirements of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 68.4.
2
Appellant’s trial counsel and appellate counsel were both appointed. The trial court also granted appellant’s pre-
trial motion to appoint an investigator based on appellant’s indigence.
-2-