Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-13-00540-CR
Yu MASAKI,
Appellant
v.
The State of
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2012CR2602
The Honorable Angus McGinty, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: March 5, 2014
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
Pursuant to an open plea of guilty, Yu Masaki was convicted of murder and sentenced to
life imprisonment. Masaki filed a timely notice of appeal. Subsequently, Masaki’s court-appointed
attorney filed a brief containing his professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating there
are no arguable grounds to be advanced. In the brief, Masaki’s attorney concludes that this appeal
is frivolous and without merit, and states that he provided Masaki with a copy of the brief, and
informed him of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Anders v. California, 386
04-13-00540-CR
U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Thereafter, Masaki filed
a pro se brief.
When an Anders brief and a subsequent pro se brief are filed, we may either (1) determine
that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that we have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error, or (2) determine 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. Garner
v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Here, we have reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and Masaki’s pro se
brief, and have concluded that there is no reversible error and this appeal is wholly frivolous and
without merit.
The record indicates that the trial court found Masaki to be indigent and appointed counsel
to represent him at trial and on appeal. However, the judgment signed by the trial court assesses
an unspecified amount of attorney’s fees against Masaki. And, the bill of costs prepared by the
trial court clerk states that the amount of court-appointed attorney’s fees assessed against Masaki
is “TBD” (“to be determined”). The evidence in the record does not support a finding that Masaki’s
ability to pay attorney’s fees changed after the trial court determined Masaki to be indigent. See
Wiley v. State, 410 S.W.3d 313, 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (explaining that a defendant who was
previously found to be indigent is presumed to remain indigent and, absent any indication in the
record that the defendant’s financial status has changed, the evidence will not support the
imposition of attorney’s fees); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.04(p) (West Supp.
2013). We, therefore, modify the judgment and the bill of costs to delete the assessment of
attorney’s fees against Masaki. See Green v. State, No. 04-13-00018-CR, 2013 WL 6200328, at*2
(Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 27, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)
-2-
04-13-00540-CR
(reforming both the judgment and the bill of costs to delete the assessment of attorney’s fees
against an indigent criminal defendant).
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed as modified, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is
granted. 1
Karen Angelini, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
1
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant 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 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.
-3-