ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
NO. 12-14-00163-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 12 JUDICIAL DISTRICT TH TYLER, TEXAS

KATHIE SPEARS, APPELLANT

VS.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

ON APPEAL IN CAUSE NUMBER 007-1236-05 FROM THE 7 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT th OF SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS HONORABLE KERRY RUSSELL, JUDGE PRESIDING

APPELLANT’S BRIEF JAMES W. HUGGLER, JR. 100 E. FERGUSON, SUITE 805 TYLER, TEXAS 75702 903-593-2400 STATE BAR NUMBER 00795437
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ACCEPTED 12-14-00163-cr TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 1/5/2015 6:18:18 PM CATHY LUSK CLERKI D E N T I T Y O F P A R T I E S A N D C O U N S E L

APPELL ANT: Kat hie S pe ars
APPELL ANT’S T RIAL COUNS EL Rhet t Dar by PO Box 1 92 Athe ns, Te xas 7575 1
O. W. L oy d 1507 F ro st Gil me r, T ex as 7564 4 903- 843- 3469
Jo hn Jar vis (At re vo cat io n) 326 S. F annin Tyl er , Te xas 7570 2 903- 592- 6576
APPELL ANT’S APP ELLATE COUNS EL Kurt No el l (200 7 appe al) 231 S. Co lle ge Tyl er , Te xas 7570 2 903- 597- 9069
Jam es Huggl er 100 E. Fe rguso n, Suit e 805 Tyl er , Te xas 7570 2 903- 593- 2400 903- 593- 3830 (f

ax)

iiAPPELL EE

The S ta te o f T ex as
APPELL EE’S TRIAL CO UNSEL M. Bre nt Rate kin Daphne S ess io n Jaso n Pa rri sh St ev e Com te Whi tne y Tharpe Chris Gat ew oo d Bryan Jira l Sm it h Co unty Crim inal Dist ric t Att or ney ’s Offi ce 100 N. Bro adwa y, 4 F lo or t h Tyl er , Te xas 7570 2 903- 590- 1720 903- 590- 1719 (f

ax)
APPELL EE’S APPELL ATE CO UNSEL Michae l We st Sm it h Co unty Crim inal Dist ric t Att or ney ’s Offi ce 100 N. Bro adwa y, 4 F lo or t h Tyl er , Te xas 7570 2 903- 590- 1720 903- 590- 1719 (f

ax)

iiiT A B L E O F C O N T E N T S P A G E

ID ENTIT Y O F PARTI ES AND COUNS EL.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
TABLE OF AUTHORI TI ES.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
ST ATEMENT OF THE CAS E.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
IS SUES P RESENTED

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
IS SUE ONE: T he tr ial co urt er re d i n se nte ncing Ms. Spe ars whe n the t rial c our t had no j urisdi ct io n o ve r the c ase b ec ause t he mandat e had no t ye t issue d f ro m the Co urt of

Appe als.
IS SUE TW O: T he tr ial co urt er re d i n im po sing at to rne y fe es fo llo wing a fi nding that Ms. S pe ars was indig ent a nd w as appo inte d c ounse l.
IS SUE THREE: The D ist ric t Cle rk e rre d i n incl uding at to rne y fe es fo llo wing a fi nding that Ms. S pe ars was indig ent a nd appo inte d c ounse l.
ST ATEMENT OF FACTS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
ARGUMENT.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
IS SUE ONE, RES TATED.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
IS SUE TW O, RES TATED.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
IS SUE THREE, RESTAT ED.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

ivA. Law o n At to rne y Fe es.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

B. St andard of

Re vie w.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 C. Applic at io n t o The se Fact s.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 D. Re me dy and Re lie f Re ques te d.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
PRAYER.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
CERTIF ICATE OF SERVI CE.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
CERTIF ICATE OF COMPL IANCE.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

vT A B L E O F A U T H O R I T I E S

S T A T U T E S T E X

. C O D E C R IM

. P R O C

. A N N

. art

. 26. 04(p) (W est 2 013)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 T E X

. C O D E C R IM

. P R O C

. A N N

. art

. 26. 05(g ) ( We st 2013 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 T E X

. C O D E C R IM

. P R O C

. A N N

. art

. 103. 001 (W est 2 013)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 T E X

. G O V ’ T C O D E A N N

. §§ 1 02. 001- .1 42 (W est 2 013)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 T E X

. G O V ’ T C O D E A N N

. § 102. 021 (W est 2 013)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 T E X

. G O V ’ T C O D E A N N

. § 103. 006 (W est 2 013)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. §3 1. 03(a ) a nd (e )(4) (A) (W est 2 001)

. . . . . . . . . . 3 T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. § 33. 09 (W est 2 001)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 3

C A S E S Arbuckle v
. St at e, 1 05 S. W. 2d 219 (Te x. Cri m. App. 1 937)

. . . . . . . . . . . 7 Armst ro ng v. S ta te , 340 S. W. 3d 759 (Te x. Cri m. App. 2 011)

. . . . . 10, 1 1 Cart er v
. St at e, 5 10 S. W. 2d 323 (Te x. Cri m. App. 1 974)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Coa ts v. S ta te , 788 S. W. 2d 674 (Te x. App. – Co rpus Christ i 1 990, no pe t)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 De ifik v. S ta te , 58 S. W. 3d 794 (Te x. App. – F or t Wo rt h 20 01).

. . . . . . . 8 Go lli har v. S ta te , 46 S. W. 3d 243 (Te x. Cri m. App. 2 001)

. . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Hea rt fie ld v. T hale r, 4 03 S. W. 3d 234 (Te x. Cri m. App. 2 013)

. . . . . . . . . 7 How el l v. S ta te , 175 S. W. 3d 786, 7 92 (Te x. Cri m. App. 2 005)

. . . . . . . . 12 Jackso n v
. Virg inia, 4 43 U.S

. 307, 9 9 S. Ct

. 2781 , 6 1 L. Ed. 2 d 5 60 (197 9).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Jo hnson v. S ta te , 423 S. W. 3d 385, 3 90 (Te x. Cri m. App. 2 014)

. . . . . . 11 Jo hnson v. S ta te , 405 S. W. 3d 350, 3 54 (Te x. App. – T yle r 2 013, no pe t)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 1 2 Maye r v. S ta te , 309 S. W. 3d 552, 5 57 (Te x. Cri m. App. 2 010)

. . . . . 10, 1 2
viMont go me ry v. S ta te , 810 S. W. 2d 372, 3 80 (Te x. Cri m. App. 1 991)

. . . 12

Mor ris v. S ta te , 658 S. W. 2d 310 (Te x. App. – Ho usto n [1 D ist .] s t 1 983, no pe t. ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Nix v. S ta te , 65 S. W. 3d 664 (Te x. Cri m. App. 2 001)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Owe n v
. St at e, 3 52 S. W. 3d 542, 5 148 (Te x. App. – Am aril lo 2 011, no pe t)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 1 1 Spe ars v. S ta te , No. 1 2-07 -001 68-CR, 2 008 Te x. App. L EXIS 9 8 (T ex
. App. – Tyl er 2 008, no pe t. ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3 , 6 We ir v. S ta te , 278 S. W. 3d 364, 3 67 (Te x. Cri m. App. 2 009)

. . . . . . . . . 10 Whe tst one v
. St at e, 7 86 S. W. 2d 361 (Te x. Cri m. App. 1 990)

. . . . . . . . . 7 Wi lli ams v. S ta te , 332 S. W. 3d 694, 6 99 (Te x. App. – Am aril lo 2 011, pe t. de nie d).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 1 2

R U L E S T E X

. R. A P P

. P R O C

. 9. 4.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 T E X

. R. A P P

. P R O C

. 38.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

viiNO. 1 2-14 -001 63-CR

KATHI E S PEARS § IN THE CO URT OF APPEALS APPELL ANT § § VS. § 12 J UDI CIAL DI ST RICT T H § THE S TATE OF TEXAS, § APPELL EE § TYLER, T EXAS

A P P E L L A N T ’ S B R I E F

T O T H E H O N O R A B L E C O U R T O F A P P E A L S A N D T H E J U S T I C E S T H E R E O F :

Com es now Kat hie Spe ars, (“ Appe llant ”) , by and thro ugh his

at to rne y of re co rd, Jam es Huggl er , and pursuant to the pro visi ons of T E X

. R. A P P

. P R O C

. 38, et se q. , re spe ct fully subm it s t his b rie f o n app ea l.

S T A T E M E N T O F T H E C A S E
Appe llant was indict ed in Cause Number 007- 1236 -05 for the sta te jai l fe lo ny of

fe nse of the ft

. I CR 1 ; see T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. § 3 3

. 09 1

Refer ence s to the Clerk’s Recor d are desig nated “ CR” with a roman numer al pre ceding 1 “CR” indicating the cor

rec t volume and an a

rabic numera l following “ CR” specify ing the corr ect 1(W est 2001 ). Fo llo wing a be nch tr ial, the case was appe ale d to this co urt

and affi rme d. I CR 88-9 0, 99. Spe ars v. St at e, No. 12-0 7-00 168- CR, 2008
Te x. App. LEXIS 98 (Te x. App.

– Tyl er , 2008 no pe t. ). The St at e file d a

mo ti on to re vo ke her pro bat io n, Ms. Spe ars ent er ed tr ue p l e a s t o s om e
alle gat io ns, and not tr ue to ot her s. I CR 134- 137, 144; I RR 13

. The tr ial 2

co urt onl y fo und the alle gat io ns to which Ms. Spe ars ple ad to o to be tr ue.
I RR 46. The co ur t i m p o s e d a tw o ye ar sent enc e wit h the out sta nding $9, 173 in r est it utio n and out sta nding co urt co sts. I RR 46

.
Not ice of a p p e a l was ti me ly file d in on June 23, 2014

. I CR 157.
This Brie f is ti me ly file d on or be fo re January 5, 2015 fo llo wing pro pe r

ex te nsio n g rant ed b y this Co urt.

pag e in the re cord.

Refer ence s to the Reporter’ s Record a re de signa ted “RR” with a r oman numera l 2 prec eding “RR” indicating the cor rec t volume, and an a

rabic numera l following “ RR” specify ing the cor rec t pag e. 2I S S U E S P R E S E N T E D

I S S U E O N E : T H E T R I A L C O U R T E R R E D I N S E N T E N C I N G M S

. S P E A R S W H E N T H E T R I A L C O U R T H A D N O J U R I S D I C T I O N O V E R T H E C A S E B E C A U S E T H E M A N D A T E H A D N O T Y E T I S S U E D F R O M T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

.

I S S U E T W O : T H E T R I A L C O U R T E R R E D I N I M P O S I N G A T T O R N E Y F E E S F O L L O W I N G A F I N D I N G T H A T M S

. S P E A R S W A S I N D I G E N T A N D W A S A P P O I N T E D C O U N S E L

.

I S S U E T H R E E : T H E D I S T R I C T C L E R K E R R E D I N I N C L U D I N G A T T O R N E Y F E E S I N T H E B I L L O F C O S T S F O L L O W I N G A F I N D I N G T H A T M S

. S P E A R S W A S I N D I G E N T A N D W A S A P P O I N T E D C O U N S E L

.

S T A T E M E N T O F T H E F A C T S

Kat hie Spe ars was indict ed fo r the sta te jai l fe lo ny off ense of theft

. I CR 1. T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. §§ 31. 03(a ) and ( e )(4) (A) and 31. 09(W est
2001 ). Fo llo wing a be nch tr ial, the case was appe ale d t o this co urt and
the judg me nt was affi rme d. CR 88-9 0; Spe ars v. St at e, No. 12-0 7-00 168- CR, 2008 Te x. App. LEXIS 98 (Te x. App. – Tyl er , 2008 , no pe t. ). On bo th April 2, 2007 and March 5, 2008 , Ms. Spe ars was se nte nce d to two yea rs

pro bat ed fo r fiv e ye a r s and or de re d paym ent of $15, 373 in re sti tut io n. I
CR 71-7 2, 93-9 4. The co urt imp ose d a var ie ty of co ndit io ns of super visi on.
3I CR 73 -76, 9 5-98

.

The St at e file d tw o diff er ent mo ti ons to re vo k e t he pro bat io n. I
CR123-1 28, 134- 137. The firs t mo ti on was dism isse d and the pro b a ti on

was mo difi ed

. I CR 132, 1 31. The sec ond mo ti on to re vo ke include d t he
fo llo wing alle gat io ns: (1) that Ms. Spe ars was plac ed on pro bat io n; (2) that
she fail ed to pay the super v i s i o n f e e t o pro bat io n; (3) that she fail ed to
send in mai l-in re po rt s f o r t hr ee mo nths; (4) she fail ed to ob ta in a GED
and fail ed to pro vid e pro of of ob ta ining a GED to pro bat io n; (5) she fail ed

to pay an out sta nding bala nce of re sti tut io n of $11, 330. 00 to the pro bat io n de part me nt; and (6) that she was de linque nt in payi ng co urt co sts
include d f

ee s f or a ppo inte d c ounse l. I CR 13 4-13 7.

Ms. Spe ars ent er ed a ple a of tr ue to ide nti t y , t he para gra phs

re gar ding the mai l-in re po rt s and the GED. I CR 144; I RR 13. The tr ial

co urt onl y fo und that she vio lat ed her pro bat io n on the tw o para gra phs to
which she ent er e d p l e a s of tr ue. I RR 46. Fo llo wing ev ide nce and the

arg ume nt of co unsel, the co urt re vo ked Ms. Spe ar s ’ p ro bat io n and

sent enc ed her to tw o year s co nfine me nt. I CR 146- 147; I R R 46. Furt her
discussi on of re le vant fact s is include d be lo w. Tim el y not ice of appe al was

4file d. I CR 15 7. T his a ppe al fo llo ws.

S U M M A R Y O F A R G U M E N T

The firs t issue fo r the co urt to co nside r is whe the r the tr ial co urt

ev en had juri sdict io n to p plac e M s
. S p e a r s on pro bat io n. Fo llo wing a be nch tr ial, the tr ial co urt fo und Ms. Spe ars guil ty and plac ed he r on

pro bat io n. This Court affi rme d the judg me nt. The tr ial co urt fo rma lly re sent enc ed Ms. Spe ars on March 5, 2008

. I CR 9 3

- 9 4

. H o we ve r, the
mandat e in the case was not issue d until March 7, 2008

. Unti l the
mandat e was issue d, the tr ial co urt had no juri sdict io n to ta ke any act io n, and any act io n ta ken on or de rs ent er ed prio r t o the issuance of the
mandat e we re v oi d.

The er ro r fo r this Court to co nside r in Issue s Two and Thre e invo lve s the imp ro pe r asse ssme nt of co urt co sts. The tr ial co urt imp ro pe rly or de re d

re imb urse me nt of at to rne y fe es aft er Mr. Spe ars was fo und to be indig ent
and was appo inte d co unsel. The at to rne y fe es we re not include d in the judg me nt plac ing her on pro bat io n, but we re asse sse d and p a r ti ally

co lle ct ed . Whil e t he final judgm ent fro m the tri al co urt do es no t include

5the fe e, the bill of c o s t s pre pare d by the cle rk’s of fice do es co ntai n the imp ro pe r asse ssme nt of fe es and wil l be the re co rd used by the Sm it h
Count y co lle ct io ns de part me nt fo llo wing his re le ase fr om c usto dy.

A R G U M E N T

I S S U E O N E , R E S T A T E D : T H E T R I A L C O U R T E R R E D I N S E N T E N C I N G M S

. S P E A R S W H E N T H E T R I A L C O U R T H A D N O J U R I S D I C T I O N O V E R T H E C A S E B E C A U S E T H E M A N D A T E H A D N O T Y E T I S S U E D F R O M T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

.

On April 2, 2007 , the tr ial co urt ent er ed a judg me nt aga inst Ms. Spe ars asse ssing her sent enc e at t w o y e a r s in a sta te jai l pro bat ed fo r a
te rm of fiv e ye ars. I CR 71-7 2. That j ud gm ent was appe ale d to the
Twe lft h Court of Appe als. On January 9, 2008 , the Cou r t i s s ue d an

op inio n and judg me nt affi rmi ng the judg me nt of the tr ial co urt. I CR 88-
90. Spe ars v. St at e, No. 12-0 7-00 168- CR, 2008 Te x. App. LEXIS 98, (Te x. App. – Tyl er 2008 , no pe t. ). The tr ial co urt he l d a hear ing on March 5,
2008 sent enc ing Ms. Spe ars aga in to tw o ye ars pro bat ed fo r a te rm of fiv e

ye ars. I CR 93-9 4. That same dat e the tr ial co urt also ent er ed the te rms and co ndit io ns of pro bat io n which we re lat er the subje ct of the re vo cat io n

6pro ce ed ings in 2014

. I CR 95-9 8. How ev er , this Court d i d not issue the

Mandat e in t he case unt il March 27, 2 008. I CR 10 1.

Unti l the mandat e from the co urt of appe als issues, the case is sti ll

on appe al. Heart fie ld v. Thale r, 4 03 S. W. 3d 234 (Te x. Crim. App. 2013 ).
A judg me nt of co nvic ti on canno t be used fo r enhance me nt purpo ses until
the co nvic ti on has be en affi rme d. Arbuckle v. St at e, 105 S. W. 2d 219 (Te x. Crim

. App. 1937 ); Cart er v. St at e, 510 S. W. 2d 323 (Te x. Crim

. App. 1974 ).
Se e also Coat s v. St at e, 788 S.W .2 d 674, 676 (Tex . App. – Cor pus Christ i
1990 , no pe t. ).

Ordi na r i ly, the val idit y of a co nvic ti on, fro m which no appe al was
ta ken, is not re vie wabl e in the appe al of a subse quent re vo cat io n or de r. Whe tst one v. St at e, 786 S. W. 2d 361, 363 (Te x. Crim

. App. 1990 ), ov er rule d

on ot her gro unds by Go lli har v. St at e, 46 S. W. 3d 243, 249- 50, 256- 57 (Te x. Crim

. App. 2001 ). An ex ce pti on lie s fo r a vo id judg me nt which re co gnize s the re a re som e rare sit uati ons in which a tr ial co urt’ s judg me nt is

acco rde d no re spe ct due to a co mpl et e lack of po we r to re nder the judg me nt in ques ti on. A vo id judg me nt is a “null it y” and can be at ta cke d

at any tim e. If the or igi nal judg me nt im po sing pro bat io n was vo id, the n the t rial c our t wo uld have no autho rit y to rev oke pr ob at io ns, since , wit h 7no judg me nt imp osi ng pro bat io n (be cause it is a nullit y), the re is not hing

to r ev oke

. Ni x v. S ta te , 65 S. W. 3d 664, 6 67-6 8 (Te x. Cri m. App. 2 001)

.
Whi le this sit uati on was not spe c i f i c ally include d in the near ly

e x c l usive list in Nix, the tr ial co urt lacke d juri sdict io n ov er the c a s e t o
ent er a judg me nt prio r to the mandat e being issue d. The tr ial court was

w it hout po we r to ent er the or de r plac ing Ms. Spe ars on pro bat io n unt i l
aft er the mandat e was issue d by the Court of Appe als. Any or de r ent er ed
b e t w e e n the firs t not ice of appe al and the mandat e is vo id be cause t he

tr ial co urt had no juri sdict io n. De ifik v. St at e, 58 S. W. 3d 794 (Te x. App.

- Fo rt Wo rt h 2001 ). The pro pe r re me dy is to re turn the part ie s to the

po sit io n prio r to the voi d ord er
. Morr is v. St at e, 658 S. W. 2d 310, 311-12 (Te x. App. – Ho usto n [1 D ist .] 1983 , no pe t. ). s t

If this Court agr ee s, the pro pe r re me dy is to re ve rs e the judg me nt
of the tr ial co urt plac ing Ms. Spe ars on pro bat io n and re mand to the tr ial

co urt plac ing the part ie s in the same po sit io n the y oc cupie d fo llo wing this
Court ’s firs t op inio n.

8S S U E T W O , RE S T A T E D : T H E T R I A L CO U R T E R R E D I N I M P O S I N G

A T T O R N E Y F E E S F O L L O W I N G A F I N D I N G T H A T MS

. S P E A R S W A S I N D I G E N T A N D W A S A P P O I N T E D C O U N S E L

.

I S S U E T H R E E R E S T A T E D : T H E D I S T R I C T C L E R K E R R E D I N I N C L U D I N G A T T O R N E Y F E E S F O L L O W I N G A F I N D I N G T H A T M S

. S P E A R S W A S I N D I G E N T A N D W A S A P P O I N T E D C O U N S E L

A

. L a w o n A t t o r ne y ’ s F e e s
A tr ial co urt has the autho rit y to asse ss at to rne y’s fe es aga inst a cri minal de fe ndant who re ce ive d co urt- appo inte d co unsel. T E X

. C O D E
C R IM

. P R O C

. A N N

. art

. 26. 05(g )(W est 2013 ). Once a de fe ndant has be en de te rmi ned to be indig ent , she is pre sume d t o re mai n indig ent fo r the

re mai nder of the pro ce ed ings unless a mat er ial change in he r f i na nc ial
cir cumst ance s oc curs. T E X

. C O D E C R IM

. P R O C

. A N N

. art

. 26. 04(p) (W est
2013 ). Bef

or e at to rne y’s fe es may be imp ose d, the trial co urt must make

a de te rmi nati on suppo rt ed by som e fact ual basis in the re c o r d t ha t the
de fe ndant has financi al re sour ce s to enab le him to of fse t i n who le or in
part the co sts of the le gal ser vic es pro vid ed

. Jo hnson v. St at e, 405 S. W. 3d 350, 354 (Te x. App. – Tyl er 2013 , no pe t)

. If the re co rd do es not show any
mat er ial change in the de fe ndant’ s financi al cir cumst ance s, the ev ide nce wil l be insuffic ie nt to suppo rt the imp osi ti on of at to rne y’s fe es. T E X

. C O D E

9C R IM

. P R O C

. A N N

. art

. 26. 04(p) ; Maye r v. St at e, 309 S. W. 3d 552, 553, 557

(Te x. Cri m. App. 2 013)

.
Court co sts are pre -de te rmi ned, le gisl at ive ly- mandat ed ob lig at io ns

re sult ing fro m a co nvic ti o n. S e e , e. g. , T E X

. G O V ' T C O D E A N N

. §§
102. 00 1 -.1 42 (W est 2013 ) (se tt ing fo rt h var io us co urt co sts that a

co nvic te d pe rso n "shal l" pay)

. A sent enc ing co ur t shall imp ose the

sta tut or y co urt cost s at the ti me a de fe ndant is sent enc ed

. Armst ro ng v. St at e, 340 S. W. 3d 759 (Te x. Crim

. App. 2011 ); T E X

. G O V ’ T C O D E A N N

. §1 02. 021 (W est 2013). C our t co sts ar e no t punit ive in n at ure and do not
have to be include d in an or al pro nounce m e nt of a sent enc e. We ir v. St at e, 2 78 S. W. 3d 364, 3 67 (Te x. Cri m. App. 2 009)

.
A co st is not paya ble by the pe rso n ch a r g ed wit h the co st until a wri tt en bill is pro duce d or is re ady to be pro duce d, co ntai ning th e i t em s of co st, signe d by the of fice r who charg ed the co st or t he of fice r who is

ent it le d to re ce ive paym ent of the co st. T E X

. C O D E C R IM

. P R O C

. A N N

. art

. 103. 001 (W est 2013 ). The cle rk of the tr ial co urt is re quire d to kee p a fe e

re co rd, a nd a sta te me nt of a n it em t her ei n is prima fac ie evi de nce of the

co rre ct ness of the sta te me nt. O w e n v. St at e, 352 S. W. 3d 542, 548 (Te x. App.— Amari llo 2011 , no pe t. ) (cit ing T E X .C O D E C R IM

. P R O C

. A N N

. art

. 10103. 009( a), (c))

. Unti l a ce rt ifie d bill of co sts has be en made part of the

re co rd, a de fe ndant has no ob lig at io n to pay co urt co sts. Owe n, 352
S. W. 3d at 547 ( cit ing Armst ro ng, 340 S. W. 3d at 765; Wi lli ams v. St at e,
332 S. W. 3d 694, 6 99 (Te x. App. – Am aril lo 2 011, pe t. de nie d).

If a cri minal act io n is appe ale d, "an of fice r of the co urt shall ce rt ify
and sign a bill of co sts st a t i ng the co sts that have accr ued and send the
bill of co sts to the co urt to which the act io n or pro ce ed ing is tr ansfe rre d or

appe ale d." T E X

. C O D E C R IM

. P R O C

. A N N

. art

. 103. 006 (W est 2 013)

.

B

. S t a nd a r d o f R e v i e w
The imp osi ti on of co urt co sts upon a cri minal de fe ndant is a “no npuni t i v e re co upme nt of the co sts of judic ial re sour ce s ex pe nded in

co nnect io n wi th the tr ial of the case .” Jo hnson v. S ta te , 423 S. W. 3d 385,
390 (Te x. Crim

. App. 2014 ). Whe n the imp osi ti on o f c o urt co sts is
chall eng ed on appe al, the co urt re vie ws the asse ssme nt of co sts to
de te rmi ne if the re is a basis fo r the co st, not to de te rmi ne i f t he r e is
suffic ie nt ev ide nce o ffe re d a t tr ial to pr ov e ea ch c ost

. I d.

The sta ndard fo r re vie wing a le gal suffic ie ncy chall eng e is whe the r

11any rat io nal tr ie r of fact co uld have f o un d the ess ent ial el em ent s of the

o ffe nse be yo nd a re aso nable do ubt. Se e Jackso n v. Virg inia, 443 U.S

. a t
315- 16, 99 S. Ct. at 2786 -787 ; see also Maye r v. St at e, 309 S. W

. 3 d 5 52,
557 (Te x. Crim

. App. 2010 )(suffi cie ncy re vie w of ev ide nce to suppo rt or de r of r ep aym ent o f a tt or ney fe es as co sts)

.
A chall eng e to a wit hdrawa l of funds not ific at io n is re vie we d fo r an abuse of discr et io n. Wi lli ams, 332 S. W. 3d at 6 98. A tr ial co urt abuse s
it s discr et io n whe n it a c t s “w it hout re fe re nce to any guidi ng rule s and princi ple s. How el l v. St at e, 175 S. W. 3d 786, 792 (Te x. Crim . A pp. 2005 );
Mont go me ry v. St at e, 810 S. W. 2d 372, 380 (Te x. Crim

. A p p
. 1 9 9 1). The

re vie wing co urt may mo dify a wit hdrawa l or de r on dire ct a p p e a l if the

ev ide nce is insuffic ie nt to suppo rt the asse ssme nt of co urt co sts. Jo hnson

v. S ta te , 405 S. W. 3d at 3 55.

C

. A p p l i c a t i o n t o T he s e F a c t s
Ms

. S pe ars has be en re pre sent ed at all ti me s fo llo wing the init ial

tr ial o f t he case b y appo inte d counse l. The rec or d cont ains tw o dif fe re nt

or de rs appo inti ng co unsel. I CR

. Fo llo wing a paupe r’s oa th appli cat io n,

12Ms. Spe ars was appo inte d co unsel fo r purpo ses of the firs t appe al. I CR

81-8 3. A not her att or ney was appoint ed fo r the firs t mot io n to re vo ke. I
CR 118. A thir d at to rne y was appo inte d fo r the sec ond mo ti on to re vo ke.
I CR 139. Final ly, appe llat e co unsel was appo inte d fo r this appe al. I CR
158. A mo ti on was file d wit h the tr ial co urt see king a f r ee re po rt er ’s

re co rd on appe al. I C R 1 61-1 63. This mo ti on was gra nte d by the tr ial

co urt wit hout o ppo sit io n fr om t he St at e of T ex as. I CR 164.

The appli cat io n to pro ce ed to final adj udicat io n i nc l uded an alle gat io n that Ms. Spe ars fail ed to pay c o ur t co st (sic ), includi ng any

appo inte d co unsel fe es. I CR 137, ¶ 6. The tr ial court or de re d Ms. Spe ars
to pa y any unpaid ta xab le c our t co sts. I RR 46

.
The March 5, 200 8 or de r plac ing Ms. Spe ars o n proba ti on incl uded $263 .0 0 in co urt co sts. I CR 93. This amo unt m a t c he s the judg em ent
issue d April 2, 2007

. I C R 71. How ev er , the bill of co sts pre pare d by the
Dist ric t Cle rk’s Offi ce on June 20, 2014 do e s not mat ch ei the r of tho se

amo unts. I CR 151- 152. The final judg me nt signe d June 18, 2014 re fle ct s

a zer o bala nce fo r co urt c o s t s , ev en tho ugh the bill of co sts re fle ct s a bala nce o f $ 200. I CR 146- 151.

13The maj or it y of the it em s l i s t e d on the bill of co sts appe ar to be

pro pe rly asse sse d c o s ts. I CR 151. The pro pe rly asse sse d co sts eq ual $ 263. 00 in co urt co sts. How ev er , a $300 fe e was asse sse d fo r r e c e i v i ng

appo inte d c o unsel and a $350 “Re fund” was asse sse d and adde d aga inst
Ms. Spe ars to ta ling $ 913. 00 in c our t co sts. I CR 15 1.

The re is no ev ide nc e t o co nte st the finding that Ms. Spe ars was fo und indig ent

. A s s e ssme nt of at to rne y’s fe es fo llo wing a finding of indig enc e is imp ro pe r. W hi l e t he final judg me nt do es not include the

at to rne y’s fe e, the bill of co sts do es, and c o ur t co sts, includi ng at to rne y fe es we re imp ro pe rly co lle ct ed by the pro bat io n de par t m e nt imp act ing,

amo ng ot her thing s the r e s t i t ut io n ow ed

. Why the bill of co sts co ntai ns the fe e aft er t he judg me nt was pre pare d a nd si gne d i s no t know n.
Pro bat io n co lle ct ed at le ast $100 of the at to rne y fe es and appli ed
that amo unt to the co urt co sts, inst ea d of re sti tut io n. I RR 18. Fro m the
bill of co sts, it also appe ars that pro bat io n co lle ct ed $350 which was the n fo rwa rde d t o the Cle rk’s Offi ce fo r paym ent o f t he “Re fund”. I CR 15 1.

14D

. R e m e d y a nd R e l i e f R e q ue s t e d

The fe e see king re imb urse me nt fo r the appo inte d a t t o r ne y was imp ro pe rly asse sse d by the co urt and the cle rk’s of fice

. The judg me nt and
the bill of co sts should be mo difi ed to re fle ct the amo unt of pro pe r ta xab le

co urt co sts due, a nd t he pro bat io n de part me nt or c le rk’s of fice sho uld be

or de re d to apply the imp ro pe rl y c o l l ec te d mo nie s to re sti tut io n in this

case
.

15P R A Y E R F O R R E L I E F

WHEREFO RE, PREMIS ES CONS ID ERED , Counse l re spe ct fully

pray s that this Court re ve rse the judg me nt o f the tr ial co urt or in the
alt er nati ve m od ify t he judg me nt of t he tr ial co urt and t he bil l of cost s to
el imi nate t he co urt co sts not suppo rt ed b y the r ec or d.

Respe ct fully subm it te d,

/ s/ Jam es Huggl er Jam es W. Hugg le r, J r. St at e Bar Numbe r 0079 5437 100 E. Fe rguso n, Suit e 805 Tyl er , Te xas 7570 2 903- 593- 2400 903- 593- 3830 fa x ATTO RNEY FO R APP ELLANT

16C E R T I F I C A T E O F S E R V I C E

A t r ue and co rre ct co py of the fo re go ing Brie f of the Appe llant has be en f or war de d to co unsel fo r the St at e by el ec tr oni c fili ng on this the 5 d a y t h of J anuary, 2 015.

/ s/ Jam es Huggl er Jam es W. Hugg le r, J r.

Att or ney fo r the S ta te : Mr. Mi chae l We st Sm it h Co unty Crim inal Dist ric t Att or ney ’s Offi ce 100 N. Bro adwa y, 4 F lo or t h Tyl er , Te xas 7570 2

C E R T I F I C A T E O F C O M P L I A N C E

I ce rt ify t hat this Bri ef c om plie s w it h Te x. R. App. P

. 9. 4, spe cifi call y using 14 po int Cent ury fo nt and c ont ains 3, 638 wo rds as co unte d b y Cor el W or dPe rfe ct v er sio n x 5.

/ s/ Jam es Huggl er Jam es Huggl er

17