NO. 12-14-00143-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JOSHUA DANIEL ARDRY,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 114TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Joshua Daniel Ardry appeals his conviction for injury to a child. The trial court sentenced 

him to forty years of imprisonment. On appeal, Appellant contends the trial court erred in 

imposing attorney’s fees against him. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of injury to a child pursuant to a plea bargain 

agreement. He was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for ten years. In the 

order of deferred adjudication, the trial court assessed a total of $669.00 for court costs without 

specifying individual costs. Payment of all court costs, including appointed counsel’s fee, was a 

condition of his community supervision. The State later moved to proceed to final adjudication

alleging several violations, none of which was the failure to pay attorney’s fees. Appellant 

pleaded true to most of the allegations in the State’s motion. The trial court granted the motion, 

revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and sentenced him to forty years of imprisonment. 

The court’s initial order adjudicating guilt and the final adjudication of guilt both indicate that the 

court did not assess any costs against Appellant. Additionally, the order to withdraw funds 

attached to the judgment adjudicating guilt indicates that no costs were assessed against 

Appellant. 
2

ATTORNEY’S FEES

In his sole issue, Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in imposing attorney’s fees 

after he had been found indigent. He argues that the absence of an allegation by the State that he 

did not pay $300.00 for attorney’s fees leads to the conclusion that “Smith County collected $300 

from [him] to which legally it was not entitled.” Appellant contends he could not have appealed 

from the order to pay attorney’s fees because the bill of costs was not prepared until after he was 

placed under supervision and the costs had been paid.

Unless a material change in a criminal defendant’s financial resources is established by 

competent legal evidence, once that defendant has been found to be indigent, he is presumed to 

remain indigent for the remainder of the proceedings. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.04(p) 

(West Supp. 2014). Without record evidence demonstrating a defendant’s financial resources to 

offset the costs of legal services, a trial court errs if it orders reimbursement of court appointed 

attorney’s fees. Williams v. State, 332 S.W.3d 694, 699 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2011, pet. denied). 

However, Appellant must raise this claim in a direct appeal from the initial judgment imposing 

community supervision or he forfeits the claim. Riles v. State, 452 S.W.3d 333, 337 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2015).

The record shows that a total of $669.00 for court costs was assessed in the 2011 order of 

deferred adjudication. One of the conditions of community supervision was to pay all court costs, 

including appointed counsel’s fee, with the first such payment due the month following his 

placement on community supervision. Appellant did not appeal from the judgment placing him 

on community supervision. Contrary to his assertion, he had enough information to have known 

to challenge the order to pay the fee. He did not need to wait for a bill of costs to complain of the 

assessment of fees on appeal. Id. Therefore, Appellant has forfeited his complaint that the trial 

court erred in assessing attorney’s fees against him in 2011. Id. We overrule Appellant’s sole 

issue. 

DISPOSITION

Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

BRIAN HOYLE

Justice

Opinion delivered July 8, 2015.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 8, 2015

NO. 12-14-00143-CR

JOSHUA DANIEL ARDRY,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0955-11)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and the briefs filed 

herein; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in 

the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of 

the court below be in all things affirmed, and that the decision be certified to the court below 

for observance.

Brian Hoyle, Justice.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.