### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00581- CR

Shau risha Jennell S tee le, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 426 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 51,1 97, TH E H ONO RAB LE F ANCY H. JEZEK, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
S h au risha J enell Steele appea ls the revoc ation of her community supervision fo r robber y . See Tex. Pen. Code § 29.02; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.12, § 23. She raises two points of err or on appea l relating to the imposit ion of court costs. We aff irm the trial court’s judgme nt of re vocation.
BACK GR OUND

Steele pled g uilty to the felony offe nse of robber y . The trial court defe rre d a finding of guilt and placed he r on def err ed adjudication community supervision for a period of five y ear s. Subsequently , the S tate filed a mot ion t o ad judicate guilt. Steele pled true to multipl e allegations
asser ting various violations of her community supervision, and the trial court adjudicate d her g uilty
. The court sentenc ed her to se rve ten y ear s in the Institut ional Division of the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice, order ing that she participat e in the State Boot Camp Prog ram. See Tex. Crim.Proc. art. 42.12, § 8; Tex. Gov’t Code § 499.052. Upon her succe ssful completion of that prog ram,

the trial court suspended further imposit ion of the ten-y ear sentenc e and place d Steele on community supervision for a

period of te n y ear s. SeeTex. Code Crim. P roc. a rt. 42.12, §§ 3, 8. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke community supervision. Wit hout benef it of a plea barg ain, Steele pled true to ag ain violating the conditions of her community supervision. T he trial court found the alleg ations to be true, revoke d Steele’s community supervision, and sentenc ed her to nine y ear s in prison. At the time of sentenc ing, the t ri al co urt order ed Steele to “pay all court costs in this case .” St ee l e appea ls the judgme nt revoking her community

supervision.
DISCUSSIO N T he judgme nt revoking Steele’s community supervision order ed the repa y ment o f court costs in the amoun t o f $ 4 8 2.50. In two points of err or on appea l, Steele challeng es the assessment of these court costs. She asser ts that (1) the fee s wer e improperly assessed beca use she
was indige nt and there was no evidenc e to support a finding by the trial co u rt t hat she had the financ ial ability to pay any attorney ’s fee s as part of the court co s t s as s es s ed , and (2) there is insufficient evidenc e in the rec ord to sustain the imposit ion of the specific dollar amount of $482.50.

In order to assess court-a ppointed attorney ’s fe es i n a judgme nt, a trial court must deter mine that the defe ndant has financ ial resour ces that enable her to offse t in part or in whole the costs of leg al service s provided. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 26.05(g ); May er v. S t a t e , 309 S.W .3d 552, 555–56 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Her e, the clerk ’s re co rd re fl ects that at three stag es in this proce eding (the adjudication, the revoc ation, and the appea l) the trial court found Steele 2to be indige nt and appointed counsel to repr esent her. Thus, Steele argues in her first point of err or 1 that beca use she is indige nt, the portion of court costs attributed to attorney ’s fee s should be deleted from the judg ment.

In her second point of err or, Steele points out that the orig inal cler k’s rec ord in this appea l contained no cer

tified bill of cost s, y et the trial court’s judgme nt indicates she must pay $482.50 in court costs. Consequently , she argues that the evidenc e is insuffi ci ent to support the imposit ion of the court costs and contends that the judgme nt should be modified to delete the court costs assessed. Howeve r, Steele further asser ts that “if the appellate rec ord should be supplemented to include a proper bill of costs, then t he judgment should be modified to delete the portion of the court c osts which includes attorne y ’s fe es.”

The district cler

k supplemented the rec ord du ri ng the pendenc y of this appea l to include a cer

tified bill of court costs. The bill of costs demonstrates that no portion of the court costs assessed by the trial court includes court-a ppo i nted attorney ’s fee s. A convicted defe ndant’s indige nce is not rele vant to the amount of court costs assessed when those court costs do not include
an obligation to pay court-a ppointed attorney ’s fee s under article 26
. 0 5(g ) of the Code of Criminal Procedur e. See Pivonka v. State , No. 10-12-00176- CR, 2013 WL 4 0 4 0 1 1 2 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco Aug
. 8, 2013, no pet. h.) (me m. op., not designated for publication); Slaven v . State , No. 02-11-00297- CV, 2012 WL 5535603, at *4 (Tex. App.—For t Worth Nov. 15, 2012, no pet.) (mem. o p . ); Dissette v. State , No. 09-11-00672- CR, 2012 WL 1249014, at *1 (Tex. App.—B eaumont Apr . 11, 2012, no pet.) (me m. op., not designated for publication).

The re cord r efle cts that reta ined counse l repre sented Steele at the orig inal plea he aring
. 1 3We overrule Steele’s f irst and sec ond points of error
. CONCLUSION Be cause the rec ord demonstrates that no portion of the court costs assessed includes the repa y ment of court-a

ppointed attorney ’s fee s, we find no err or in the trial court order ing Steele to pay court costs as ref lected in the judgme nt. We aff irm the judgme nt revok i n g S t ee l e’s community

supervision.

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Goodwin and F ield Affir med Filed: September

26, 2013 Do Not Publish

4