Date: 09-29-2022

Case Style:

Isis Woods v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 04-21-00040-CR

Judge: Liza A. Rodriguez

Court:

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

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

Plaintiff's Attorney: Dave Wilborn
Julie A. Wright
Christopher M. Eaton

Defendant's Attorney:

San Antonio, TX - Best Credit Card or Debit Card Abuse Lawyer Directory

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

Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement

Counselor:
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

Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800

Description:

San Antonio, Texas – Credit Card or Debit Card Abuse lawyer represented defendant with a credit card or debit card Abuse charge.

Appellant Isis Woods pled guilty to the state jail felony offense of credit card or debit card
abuse. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.31(b)(1) (A). The trial court accepted Woods’ plea but
did not adjudicate guilt and placed Woods on deferred adjudication community supervision for a
term of three years. As part of the conditions of Woods’ community supervision, she was required
to pay $1,200 in court-appointed attorney’s fees. Approximately eighteen months later, the State
filed a motion to revoke community supervision and adjudicate guilt alleging that Woods
committed six violations of the conditions of her community supervision. At the hearing on the
State’s motion, Woods pled “true” to all six alleged violations and the trial court found the
violations to be “true.” The trial court proceeded to adjudicate Woods guilty of the offense of
credit card or debit card abuse and sentenced her to serve a nine-month term in the State Jail
Division, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Woods appealed.
Woods’ 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), and a
motion to withdraw. With citations to the record and legal authority, counsel’s brief explains why
no arguable appellate issues exist and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The
brief meets the Anders requirements. See id. at 744-45; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807,
812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). As
required, counsel provided Woods with a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and informed
her of the right to receive a copy of the appellate record and to file her own pro se brief. See Kelly
v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also 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.). Woods did not file a pro se brief. After an independent review
of the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we conclude there is no reversible error and agree with
counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Counsel’s brief points out that although Woods is indigent and her financial circumstances
have not changed, the judgment improperly assesses $600 in court-appointed attorney’s fees for
the revocation hearing. The record reflects the trial court found Woods indigent and appointed
counsel to represent her at the revocation hearing and on appeal. Because there is nothing in the
record to show that Woods’ financial status has changed, court-appointed attorney’s fees may not
be assessed against Woods. See Wiley v. State, 410 S.W.3d 313, 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (a
defendant previously found 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
imposition of attorney’s fees). Here, the trial court’s judgment assesses total court costs of $2,228
against Woods and the Bill of Costs reflects that a total of $1,800 was charged for court-appointed
attorneys’ fees. When Woods was placed on deferred adjudication, the conditions of community
supervision required her to pay $1,200 in court-appointed attorney’s fees and no appeal was taken.
Because the record does not support the assessment of additional court-appointed attorney’s fees
for the revocation hearing, we modify the trial court’s judgment to delete the $600 in attorney’s
fees included as part of the court costs assessed against Woods. We further order the trial court
clerk to prepare and file a corrected Bill of Costs showing that no attorney’s fees were assessed
against Woods for the revocation hearing. See Mayberry v. State, No. 04-18-00463-CR, 2019 WL
1547444, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Apr. 10, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication) (ordering corrected bill of costs in an Anders appeal).

Outcome: Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modified, and appellate
counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.1

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: