Legal Opinion

Bray v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided November 10, 2005No. 2-04-148-CR to 2-04-150-CRPublishedCited by 213 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SUE WALKER, Justice.

I. Introduction

On the court’s own motion, we submitted this case en banc. The primary issue that we address in this appeal is whether, in an Anders 1 appeal, we have the authority to reform the judgment to delete appointed counsel fees that were set by the trial court as a condition of parole when appointed counsel did not raise this issue as a point of arguable error. Because we hold that we do have that authority, we reform the trial court’s judgment in cause number 2-04-148-CR to delete the appointed counsel fees imposed as a condition of parole, affirm that…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Anders v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. Nichols v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1997
  4. Manuel v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1999
  5. Nix v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2001

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by213 opinions

  1. Ferguson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2014
  2. Alexander v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2009
  3. Aguilar v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2007
  4. Ceballos v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2008
  5. Waylin Lee Wiedenfeld v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2014

208 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API