X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant, Anteaus J. Bray, pleaded guilty to three cases of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and the trial court placed him on five years’ deferred adjudication community supervision in each case and assessed a $250 fine in one of the cases. Later, the state filed a petition to proceed to adjudication in each case, alleging that Bray used marijuana; failed to make monthly payments on his fine, court costs and supervision fee; failed to complete his community service restitution; failed to submit a urine sample; and failed to attend a budgeting class. At the contested revocation hearing, Bray presented his pro se motion of declaration of conflict between attorney and client. That motion argued that his court-appointed attorney “always came at [him] with what the State was offering” and indicated that he wanted his court-appointed attorney to work for him to get him rehabilitation. The trial court explained to Bray that his appointed counsel had a legal obligation to convey the state’s plea bargain offers and to consult with the court’s officer. The trial court called a recess to enable Bray to further consult with his court-appointed attorney. Subsequently, Bray entered a plea of true to the allegations in the state’s petition but offered mitigating explanations for his actions. The trial court adjudicated Bray guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced him to five years’ confinement in each case, to run concurrently; assessed reparation of $2,239 and � in appellate cause number 2-04-148-CR � assessed appointed counsel fees of $1,150 to be paid as a condition of parole. Bray’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel avers that, in his professional opinion, these appeals are frivolous. Bray did not file a pro se brief. HOLDING:The court grants appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and reforms the judgment to delete the language regarding the payment of appointed counsel fees in Cause No. 2-04-148-CR, affirms the trial court’s judgments in Cause Nos. 2-04-149-CR and 2-04-150-CR and affirms the trial court’s judgment in Cause No. 2-04-148-CR as reformed. The brief and motion comply with the procedural requirements for an Anders appeal. There are no jurisdictional errors; the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over these causes. Further, the indictments were not defective; they sufficiently conferred jurisdiction on the trial court and gave Bray sufficient notice. The trial court did not err by not granting Bray’s motion concerning a conflict with counsel or by not appointing another attorney for trial. Bray did not obtain a ruling on the motion to preserve any error, the trial court called a recess so that Bray could fully discuss matters with his counsel, and Bray subsequently signed written plea admonishments stating that he was satisfied with his representation by appointed counsel. The trial court gave Bray the opportunity to offer mitigating evidence, and he did so during the punishment phase of the hearing. It is clear from the reporter’s record that the trial court considered the mitigating evidence before imposing the five-year sentences. The sentences assessed by the trial court following the punishment hearing are within the statutorily permissible range. Thus, counsel has correctly determined that the appeals in Cause Nos. 2-04-149-CR and 2-04-150-CR are wholly frivolous. In Cause No. 2-04-148-CR, however, the trial court assessed reparation of $2,239.00 and included the following language in the judgment: “appointed counsel fees in the amount of $1,150.00 to be paid as a condition of parole it is further ordered that appointed counsel fees for purposes of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Annotated, Article. 26.05 be set at $1,150.00 and made payable to and through the criminal district clerk’s office of Tarrant County, Texas[.]“ A Texas trial court is without authority to place any condition on a convicted defendant’s parole, including a condition that the defendant pay appointed counsel fees. Therefore, the trial court erred by including this condition of parole in the judgment in Cause No. 2-04-148-CR. When a trial court errs by purporting to impose a condition of parole in its judgment, the proper remedy is to reform the judgment to delete the invalid condition. But, reformation of the judgment constitutes the granting of some relief to the defendant. When a defendant is eligible for some relief, an appeal typically cannot be considered frivolous. The court declines to abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for the appointment of new counsel. Instead, the court exercises its authority to order the judgment in Cause No. 2-04-148-CR modified. The court’s independent review of the records did not reveal any other arguable grounds of error. OPINION:Sue Walker, J.; en banc.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.