Adrian Broncha Alexander v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 5, 2025
• Docket: 10-25-00019-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00019-CR

Adrian Broncha Alexander, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 19th District Court of McLennan County, Texas Judge Thomas C. West, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 2021-886-C1

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Adrian Broncha Alexander was convicted of burglary of a habitation and

sentenced to 10 years in prison. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 30.02.

Alexander's appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in

support of the motion not only asserting that counsel has diligently reviewed

the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous pursuant

to the United States Supreme Court opinion in Anders, but also presenting

nonreversible error in the judgment pursuant to this Court's order in Allison. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967);

Allison v. State, 609 S.W.3d 624, 628 (Tex. App.—Waco 2020, order). See also

Cummins v. State, 646 S.W.3d 605, 616(Tex. App.—Waco 2022, pet. ref'd).

Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error

and compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that

counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386

U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also

Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman,

252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing the Anders portion of this appeal, we must, "after a full

examination of all the proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly

frivolous." Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.

Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,

509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without

merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486

U.S. 429, 439 n. 10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). After a review

of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined the appeal to be wholly

frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005);

Cummins v. State, 646 S.W.3d 605, 620-621 (Tex. App.—Waco 2022, pet. ref'd).

As noted previously, despite finding no reversible error, counsel has

presented one issue of nonreversible error, that being the assessment of Alexander v. State Page 2 attorney’s fees in the amount of $700.00. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art.

26.04(p); Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The State

has filed a brief in response to this alleged error, see Cummins, 646 S.W.3d at

615 (State is expected to file response addressing merits of nonreversible error

presented in Allison brief), and concedes error. Thus, Alexander’s issue of

nonreversible error is sustained, and the trial court’s assessment of court costs

must be reduced by $700.00.

Accordingly, the trial court’s Judgment Revoking Community

Supervision, signed on January 9, 2025, is modified to reflect “Court Costs” as

$1,345.00, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed as modified. 1

Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Alexander is

granted.

LEE HARRIS Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: June 5, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed as modified Motion granted Do Not Publish [CR25]

1 The Certified Bill of Costs should be revised to reflect the costs due in the judgment as now modified.

Alexander v. State Page 3