Opinion
NO. 09-11-00573-CR
07-25-2012
DARRELL LAKEITH JOHNSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 07-00091
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Darrell Lakeith Johnson pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to burglary of a habitation. The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed him on unadjudicated community supervision for six years. After the State filed a motion to revoke, the trial court found Johnson violated a term of the community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and sentenced him to twenty years in prison.
The indictment spells appellant's name as Darrell Lakieth Johnson. The judgment spells his name as Darrell Lakeith Johnson.
Johnson's appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes there are no arguable points of error. We granted an extension of time for Johnson to file a pro se response. Johnson filed a pro se response raising issues regarding the cumulation order, the effectiveness of trial counsel's assistance, and the plea bargain and admonishments.
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
The Court of Criminal Appeals has explained that an appellate court may determine in an Anders case either (1) "that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error"; or (2) "that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues." We have reviewed the Anders brief, the pro se response, the State's brief, the clerk's record, and the reporter's record. We agree with Johnson's counsel that no arguable issues support an appeal. It is unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal.
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
See id.
Seeid.; compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
The State notes that an indigent defendant without financial resources cannot be charged attorney fees for the representation provided him by the justice system. The record in this case does not support the attorney fee assessment. We modify the judgment to delete that portion requiring Johnson to pay $1,000 in attorney fees. The judgment is affirmed as modified.
SeeMayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
See id.
--------
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
_______________
DAVID GAULTNEY
Justice
Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.