Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 09-28-2022

Case Style:

David Luna v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 04-21-00003-CR

Judge: Irene Rios


Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

On appeal from the 25th Judicial District Court of Guadalupe County

Plaintiff's Attorney: Jonathan Fischer
Christopher M. Eaton
Dave Wilborn

Defendant's Attorney:

San Antonio, TX - Best Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.

Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement

MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.

MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge - 855-853-4800


San Antonio, Texas – Criminal Defense lawyer represented Appellant with the trial court’s judgment revoking his community supervision.

On May 23, 2016, Luna pled guilty to the offense of burglary of a habitation. The trial
court sentenced him to ten years in prison, suspended the sentence, and placed Luna on community
supervision for eight years. Thereafter, the State moved to revoke Luna’s community supervision.
- 2 -
On December 2, 2020, the trial court revoked Luna’s community supervision and imposed a tenyear sentence.
On appeal, Luna’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief stating he conducted a
professional evaluation of the record and determined there are no arguable grounds to be advanced
on Luna’s behalf. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). With citations to the record
and legal authority, counsel explains why he concluded the appeal is without merit. Counsel states
he thoroughly reviewed the record in the underlying criminal proceeding, as well as the record of
the revocation hearing. The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional
evaluation showing why there is no basis to advance an appeal. Id. at 744–45; Stafford v. State,
813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–
13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
Counsel provided Luna with copies of counsel’s Anders brief and motion to withdraw, a
motion for pro se access to the appellate record, and informed Luna of his right to review the
record, file his own brief, and seek discretionary review should this court conclude Luna’s appeal
is frivolous. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); 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.). Thereafter, we set the deadline for Luna to file
a pro se brief. Luna did not file a pro se brief.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s Anders brief, we conclude there is no reversible
error and agree this appeal is frivolous and without merit. However, because the record shows
Luna is indigent and does not indicate a material change in his financial circumstances occurred,
we must modify the part of the judgment assessing court-appointed attorney’s fees against him.
See Cates v. State, 402 S.W.3d 250, 251 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (internal quotations omitted)
(“[A] defendant who is determined by the court to be indigent is presumed to remain indigent for
- 3 -
the remainder of the proceedings in the case unless a material change in the defendant’s financial
circumstances occurs.”); Wilmurth v. State, 419 S.W.3d 553, 554–55 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 2013, no pet.) (modifying judgment to delete assessment of attorney’s fees when
defendant is indigent). Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment to delete the assessment
of attorney’s fees against Luna.
Our review also discloses a remedial error in the written judgment. The judgment
incorrectly states Luna pled “True” to the allegations in the State’s motion to revoke. Because the
written judgment does not accurately reflect the proceedings in the trial court, we modify the
judgment to change the “Plea to Motion to Revoke:” from “True” to “Not True.” See French v.
State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (stating appellate court is authorized to reform
the judgment to “make the record speak the truth”).

Outcome: We grant the motion to withdraw filed by Luna’s counsel, modify the trial court’s
judgment, and affirm the judgment as modified.1

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case