Opinion
NO. 09-11-00417-CR
03-21-2012
SHEMERIA TRENECIA MEANS a/k/a SHEMERIA TRENICA MEANS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 10-08672
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In carrying out a plea bargain agreement, Shemeria Trenecia Means a/k/a Shemeria Trenica Means pled guilty to evading arrest or detention by using a vehicle. See Act of May 29, 1993, 73rd Leg., R.S., ch. 900, § 1.01, sec. 38.04, 1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 3586, 3667; Act of May 27, 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., ch. 1400, § 4, 2009 Tex. Gen. Laws 4385-386 (providing amendment to subsection (b) of section 38.04 of the Texas Penal Code that is applicable to this case) (amended 2011) (current version at Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04 (West Supp. 2011)). The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Means guilty, deferred further proceedings, placed Means on community supervision for four years, and ordered her to pay a $500.00 fine.
Before Means completed her community supervision, the State filed a motion to revoke and requested that the trial court revoke its decision to place Means on unadjudicated community supervision. At the revocation hearing, Means pled "true" to having violated four of the conditions found in the trial court's community supervision order. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Means had violated the conditions established for her community supervision, revoked Means's placement on unadjudicated community supervision, found Means guilty of the offense of evading arrest or detention by using a vehicle, and assessed her punishment at eighteen months in state jail. Means appealed.
On appeal, Means's counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. 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). On December 8, 2011, we granted an extension of time for the appellant to file a pro se brief. Means has not filed a response.
Having reviewed the appellate record, we conclude that no arguable issues exist that would require the appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Although we affirm the trial court's judgment, we also conclude that the trial court's judgment should be modified. In its brief, the State notes that the trial court awarded attorney's fees, and that Means was found to be indigent. Our review of the record reflects that the evidence does not support a finding that Means's ability to pay attorney's fees had changed since the date the trial court first determined her indigent. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 26.04(p), 26.05(g) (West Supp. 2011); Roberts v. State, 327 S.W.3d 880, 883-84 (Tex. App.— Beaumont 2010, no pet.). Therefore, we delete the award of $1,000 in attorney's fees by subtracting $1,000 from the Administrative Fees, thereby, changing the Administrative Fees from "$2,601.00" to "$1,601.00."
Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
In conclusion, we order the trial court's award of attorney's fees of $1,000 deleted from the Administrative Fees in the judgment; otherwise, the trial court's judgment, as reformed, is affirmed.
AFFIRMED AS REFORMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on March 1, 2012
Opinion Delivered March 21, 2012
Do Not Publish
Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.