Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-15-00790-CR
Ventura Reyes ALVARADO,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2009CR9646
Honorable Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 21, 2016
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
After Appellant Ventura Reyes Alvarado pled true to violating the conditions of his
community supervision, the trial court revoked his community supervision and sentenced him to
six years’ imprisonment. The trial court assessed a fine in the amount of $1,500.00 as well as court
courts of $510.00 1 and restitution of $75.00. Alvarado’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). Counsel concludes that the appeal has no merit. Counsel provided Alvarado
1
According to the Bill of Cost, the court costs included $200.00 for appointed attorney.
04-15-00790-CR
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.). Alvarado did not file a
pro se brief.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and
without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). However,
we also conclude the judgment assessing court-appointed attorney’s fees as costs against Alvarado
should be modified because the record reflects he is indigent. 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.” Gates v. State,
402 S.W.3d 250, 251 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.04(p) (West
Supp. 2014). The record in this case does not support a determination that Alvarado’s financial
circumstances or ability to pay attorney’s fees changed after the trial court first determined him to
be indigent. See Gates, 402 S.W.3d at 252. The proper remedy is to reform the judgment and to
delete the attorney’s fees from the bill of cost as well as any ensuing order permitting withdrawals
from the appellant’s inmate account. See id. at 251-52.
Therefore, we modify the judgment to delete the assessment of attorney’s fees against
Alvarado. The bill of cost and any order to withdraw funds from appellant’s inmate trust account
are modified to delete the requirement that he pay $200.00 in court-appointed attorney fees. We
grant the motion to withdraw filed by Alvarado’s appellate counsel and affirm the trial court’s
judgment as modified.
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Alvarado wish to seek further review of
this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Alvarado must either retain an attorney to file a
petition for discretionary review or Alvarado must file a pro se petition for discretionary review.
-2-
04-15-00790-CR
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.
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-3-