Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Valerie Marie Valle pleaded guilty to second-degree-felony burglary of a habitation and received two years of deferred-adjudication community supervision. After the State alleged a violation and Valle pleaded true, the trial court adjudicated her guilty, revoked community supervision, and sentenced her to five years in prison.
Valle’s appointed appellate counsel filed a hybrid brief. Counsel submitted an Anders analysis asserting that no arguable ground existed to challenge the revocation, adjudication, or prison sentence, while separately contesting a $550 fine and the judgment’s requirement that Valle reimburse $725 in appointed trial-counsel fees. Valle also filed a pro se response.
The Court’s Holding
After independently reviewing the record, counsel’s Anders brief, and Valle’s response, the court found no reversible error concerning the revocation, adjudication, or five-year sentence. It also held that Valle failed to preserve her challenge to the $550 fine. Although the trial court referred only to imposing “the remainder of the fine,” Valle had documents identifying the amount and did not object or seek clarification at sentencing.
As to appointed-counsel fees, the court held that Valle could not use this appeal to challenge the initial $425 reimbursement imposed when she received deferred adjudication because she had not appealed that earlier order. The record supplied no basis for finding that she could pay the additional $300 incurred during the revocation proceeding. Nevertheless, because the judgment contained no express ability-to-pay finding, the majority concluded that no modification was required and affirmed the judgment.
Chief Justice Stevens concurred in the Anders analysis and the fine ruling but dissented from the attorney-fee disposition. He would have modified the judgment and bill of costs to delete the additional $300 assessment because the record did not support Valle’s ability to pay it.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court reviewing an Anders brief must independently examine the record before permitting counsel to withdraw and affirming the judgment.
- A defendant who has notice of the amount meant by a trial court’s reference to the “remainder” of a fine must object in the trial court to preserve a complaint that the exact amount was not orally pronounced.
- An appeal from an adjudication judgment generally cannot be used to challenge appointed-counsel fees imposed in an unappealed deferred-adjudication order.
- Although the record did not establish Valle’s present ability to pay the additional revocation-stage attorney fees, the majority declined to modify a judgment containing no express ability-to-pay finding.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how preservation and appellate timing can determine challenges to financial obligations in deferred-adjudication cases. Defendants must timely contest both ambiguities in orally pronounced fines and assessments contained in the original deferred-adjudication order.
The divided treatment of the additional attorney fees also highlights disagreement over the proper remedy when the record lacks a factual basis for ability to pay: the majority left the judgment unchanged, while the partial dissent would have deleted the unsupported assessment.