Josue Pena v. The State of Texas

Nos. 07-25-00231-CR & 07-25-00232-CR · Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo · January 28, 2026 · No. Nos. 07-25-00231-CR & 07-25-00232-CR

Summary

The Seventh District Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed, as modified, judgments adjudicating Josue Pena guilty of online solicitation of a minor and failure to register as a sex offender. The court granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw under Anders v. California and found no nonfrivolous grounds for reversal. It modified the judgments to remove duplicate costs, attorney’s fees, a premature time-payment fee, and findings regarding Pena’s ability to repay appointed-counsel costs.

Holdings

  1. After independently examining the record and counsel's Anders brief, the court found no preserved, nonfrivolous issue that would support reversal of Pena's convictions or sentences and granted counsel's motion to withdraw.
  2. The judgments must be modified to delete the $1,600 attorney's-fee assessment in the online-solicitation case and the findings that Pena had financial resources to offset the cost of appointed legal services.
  3. The $15 time-payment fee was prematurely assessed and must be deleted from the online-solicitation judgment.
  4. The entire bill of costs in the failure-to-register case must be deleted because the two causes were heard together and duplicate costs were improperly assessed.
  5. The county and state consolidated court costs and sheriff's reimbursement fees were appropriately assessed and were not required to be deleted.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether appointed appellate counsel should be permitted to withdraw under Anders because the record presents no nonfrivolous ground for reversal.
  2. Whether the judgments improperly assessed attorney's fees against Pena despite his inability to pay.
  3. Whether the $15 time-payment fee was prematurely assessed.
  4. Whether costs and fees were improperly duplicated because the two causes were heard together.
  5. Whether the county and state consolidated court costs and sheriff's reimbursement fees should remain assessed.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (9)

  • Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967)(followed)
  • In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406, 409, 411 n.33 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)(followed)
  • High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978)(followed)
  • Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)(followed)
  • Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988)(followed)
  • Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969)(followed)
  • Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552, 556-57 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)(followed)
  • Dulin v. State, 620 S.W.3d 129, 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021)(followed)
  • Pruitt v. State, 646 S.W.3d 879, 883-84 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…