In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-15-00215-CR
____________________
TORIANO RENAULD FREEMAN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 359th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 13-09-10336 CR
________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this appeal, Toriano Renauld Freeman’s court-appointed counsel filed a
brief in which he contends that no arguable grounds can be advanced to support a
decision reversing Freeman’s murder conviction. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §
19.02(b)(2) (West 2011). We have reviewed the record, and we agree with
Freeman’s counsel that no arguable issues exist to support an appeal. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
1
Following an extensive trial that included a separate jury trial to determine
Freeman’s competency, a jury found Freeman guilty of murder. Then, following
the punishment phase of the trial, the trial court sentenced Freeman to serve a
thirty-year sentence. Subsequently, Freeman appealed. On appeal, Freeman’s
counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record.
In the brief, Freeman’s counsel concludes that no arguable errors exist that would
support his filing a merits-based brief in support of Freeman’s appeal. See Anders,
386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). After
receiving the Anders brief, we granted an extension of time so that Freeman could
file a pro se response. However, Freeman did not file a response.
After reviewing the appellate record and the Anders brief filed by Freeman’s
counsel, we agree with counsel’s conclusions that any appeal on the current record
would be frivolous. Therefore, it is unnecessary to order that new counsel be
appointed to re-brief Freeman’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511
(Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring the court of appeals to appoint other counsel
only if it determines that there were arguable grounds for the appeal). Given the
absence of any arguable error to support the appeal, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
2
However, during our review of the record, we observed that the trial court’s
written judgment includes an error that is capable of being reformed without the
involvement of the trial court. Prior to the trial, the trial court determined that
Freeman was indigent. Nonetheless, at the conclusion of the trial, the trial court
awarded attorney’s fees requiring Freeman to reimburse the county for fees it paid
on his behalf, even though no evidence was before the court to show that
Freeman’s indigency status had changed. Absent a change in a defendant’s status
as an indigent defendant, a trial court is not authorized to impose an award of
attorney’s fees against an indigent defendant. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts.
26.04(p), 26.05(g) (West Supp. 2016); see also Wiley v. State, 410 S.W.3d 313,
315, 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Roberts v. State, 327 S.W.3d 880, 884 (Tex.
App.—Beaumont 2010, no pet.).
We asked the parties whether they would agree to delete the attorney’s fees
from the judgment. In response to our correspondence, all parties agreed that the
attorney’s fees award should be deleted. We are authorized by the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure to render the judgment the trial court should have rendered.
See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2, 43.3. Because the matter is not contested and the record
does not support the award, we modify the judgment the trial court rendered by
3
deleting the award of $80,118.42 in attorney’s fees. As modified, we affirm the
trial court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on July 22, 2016
Opinion Delivered November 16, 2016
Do Not Publish
Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
4
Toriano Renauld Freeman v. State
Combined Opinion