Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00392-CR
Billy Bob OPPELT,
Appellant
v.
The
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2010CR5849
Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Jason Pulliam, Justice
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Jason Pulliam, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 1, 2015
AFFIRMED
BACKGROUND
A jury found Appellant, Billy Bob Oppelt, guilty of possession of a controlled substance
and assessed punishment of seven years’ confinement, probated for five years of community
service. On May 6, 2014, the trial court held a hearing on the State’s motion to revoke community
supervision. Oppelt pled “[t]rue” to all of the alleged violations of conditions of community
supervision contained within the State’s motion to revoke. Based upon Oppelt’s plea of true, the
04-14-00392-CR
trial court entered judgment revoking his community supervision and sentenced him to seven
years’ confinement. Oppelt, then, filed his notice of appeal.
ANALYSIS
Oppelt’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional
evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In this
brief, counsel concludes and demonstrates there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, and
therefore, the appeal has no merit. Counsel certifies he provided Oppelt with a copy of the brief
and informed him of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954
S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177
n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Oppelt did not file a brief.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without
merit.
The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Furthermore, we GRANT appellate
counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85-86; Bruns 924 S.W.2d at 177, n.1.
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Oppelt wish to seek further review of this
case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the later of: (1) the date of this opinion;
or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P.
68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the
requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
-2-
04-14-00392-CR
ASSESSMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES
“[A] ‘defendant who is determined by the court to be indigent is presumed to remain
indigent for the remainder of the proceedings in the case unless a material change in the
defendant’s financial circumstances occurs.’” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.04(p) (West
Supp. 2013); see Wiley v. State, 410 S.W.3d 313, 315 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (a defendant
previously found indigent is presumed to remain indigent); see also Cates v. State, 402 S.W.3d
250, 251 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
The record shows Oppelt was appointed counsel, Bob Hicks, for representation at the
revocation hearing. Following the hearing, Hicks filed a motion to withdraw and for appointment
of counsel on appeal, which was granted. Oppelt filed the notice of appeal and another motion for
appointment of appellate counsel. Appellate counsel was appointed on June 2, 2014. In the section
of the judgment in which court costs are assessed, the judgment states, “PLUS ATTY FEES.”
Because appellant is indigent and had court-appointed counsel, the assessment of attorney’s fees
against him is erroneous. The supplemental clerk’s record reveals the bill of costs states,
“APPOINTED ATTY” and “TBD” for attorney’s fees. Based upon review of the record, this court
does find the trial court’s judgment should be modified to reflect no costs shall be assessed against
Appellant in relation to his trial or this appeal because he qualifies as indigent under TEX. R. APP.
P. 20.
CONCLUSION
We modify the judgment to reflect no assessment of attorney fees against Oppelt in relation
to his trial or this appeal. We AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court as modified and GRANT
-3-
04-14-00392-CR
appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177
n.1.
Jason Pulliam, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-4-