Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 01-02-2021
Case Style:
Jeffery David James v. The State of Texas
Case Number: 06-20-00021-CR
Judge: Josh R. Morriss, III
Court: Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
Plaintiff's Attorney: Michael J. West
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
Texarkana, Texas - Criminal defense lawyer tampering With or Fabricating Physical Evidence
Jeffery David James had previously been found guilty of tampering with or fabricating
physical evidence1
in Smith County2
and had been sentenced, pursuant to a plea agreement, to
ten years’ imprisonment, suspended in favor of community supervision for a period of six years.
Subsequently, James had his community supervision revoked for violations of the terms of his
community supervision, violations which he admitted were true.
3
James appeals.
James’s attorney on appeal has filed a brief stating that he has reviewed the record and
has found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised. The brief sets out the procedural
history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the trial proceedings. Providing
a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be
advanced, counsel has met the requirements of Anders v. California. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)
(orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v.
State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion
with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
On March 15, 2020, counsel mailed to James a copy of the brief, the motion to withdraw,
and a pro se motion for access to the appellate record lacking only James’s signature. James was
1TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 37.09(c).
2Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme
Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. We follow the precedent of
the Twelfth Court of Appeals in deciding this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
3After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the State’s motion and sentenced James to ten years’
imprisonment.
3
informed of his right to request and review the record and file a pro se response. On March 16,
we notified James that his pro se motion for access to the appellate record was due on or before
April 1. By letter dated April 14, this Court informed James that any pro se response was due
on or before May 14. On July 16, this Court further notified James that the case would be set
for submission on the briefs on August 6. We received neither a pro se response from James nor
a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.
We have reviewed the entire appellate record and have independently determined that no
reversible error exists. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
However, non-reversible error is found in the assessment of attorney fees in the certified bill of
costs.
“[O]nce a criminal defendant has been determined to be indigent, []he ‘is presumed to
remain indigent for the remainder of the proceedings unless a material change in [his] financial
circumstances occurs.’” Johnson v. State, 405 S.W.3d 350, 354 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2013, no pet.)
(citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.04(p) (Supp.)). “Thus, the trial court must
determine that the defendant has financial resources which enable h[im] to offset in part or in
whole the costs of the legal services provided, and that determination must be supported by some
factual basis in the record before attorney’s fees are imposed.” Id. “If the record does not show
that the defendant’s financial circumstances materially changed after the previous determination
that []he was indigent, the evidence will be insufficient to support the imposition of attorney’s
fees.” Id. (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.04(p); Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552,
553 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)).
4
Because James was indigent, the trial court did not assess attorney fees against James and
the judgment reflects that court costs should only total $328.00. Even so, the bill of costs totals
$628.00, which includes a $300.00 attorney fee. We may “make the record speak the truth when
we have the necessary data and information to do so.” Patterson v. State, 525 S.W.3d 896, 898
(Tex. App.—Tyler 2017, no pet.) (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Ingram v. State, 261 S.W.3d
749, 754 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2008, no pet.); see Davis v. State, 323 S.W.3d 190, 198 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2008, pet. ref’d)). Because the judgment properly omitted the assessment of fees
for James’s court-appointed attorney, but the bill of costs mistakenly included them, we delete
from the bill of costs the $300.00 assessment for attorney fees.
Outcome: We modify the bill of costs by deleting the $300.00 assessment for attorney fees. We
affirm the judgment of the trial court.4
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: