Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Rogelio Cortez Martinez v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 13-12-00161-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 28, 2013; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Rogelio Cortez Martinez appeals his conviction for first-degree felony burglary of a habitation, resulting in a ninety-nine year sentence, to run consecutively with any other sentence. The appeal follows a jury trial in the 197th District Court of Cameron County, Texas, where the appellant had prior convictions for similar offenses and was on parole from another lengthy sentence. Appellant's court-appointed counsel submitted an Anders brief, indicating no grounds for appeal after reviewing the case. The brief complied with legal standards by referencing the record and applicable authorities. Appellant was informed of his rights and subsequently filed a pro se response. The court of appeals is tasked with determining whether the appeal is frivolous or if there are arguable grounds, having reviewed the entire record along with the briefs. Ultimately, the court found no reversible error and modified the judgment to remove an incorrect assessment of attorney's fees, affirming the judgment as modified. The trial court erroneously assessed $500 in attorney’s fees against the appellant, who was deemed indigent and thus cannot be charged for legal services under Texas law. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that a defendant classified as indigent is presumed to remain so unless there is a significant change in financial circumstances, and there is no evidence of any such change in this case. Consequently, the appellate court corrected the trial court's judgment by eliminating the attorney's fees assessment, affirming the modified judgment. The appellate court also addressed procedural aspects related to the attorney's motion to withdraw, confirming that counsel must notify the appellant of his right to file a discretionary review. The judgment was delivered on March 28, 2013, with instructions for the appellant regarding further appeals.