Affirmed as Modified; Opinion hled October 9. 2012.

l

In The 

## tuirt ufppia1i !Fiftli uiürirt uf rxas 

## at 1a11a No. 05-10-00436-CR
KAREE[Vi LEJON MARTiN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F07-54009-QR 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Fillmore, and Myers Opinion By Justice Moseley Kareem Lejon Martin pleaded guilty before ajury to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. See TEx. PENAL CODE ANN. 

## § 29.03(a) (West 201 1). After finding appellant guilty. the jury assessedpunishmentat fortyyears’ imprisonment. In a single issue, appellantcontends thetrial court’sjudgment shouldbe modified to delete the orderthat he pay attorney’s fees. We modify the judgmentto delete the order ofattorney’s fees and affirm as modified. The background ofthe case and the evidence admitted at trial are well known to the parties, thus we limitrecitation ofthe facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule ofAppellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled.Appellant argues the trial court erred in assessing attorney’s fees as part ofthe court costs. Specifically, appellant asserts that because he was found to be indigentby the trial court before the trial, and there was no evidence ofany material change in his circumstances, attorney’s fees should not have been assessed. A trial courtmayordera defendantto repaycosts ofcourt-appointed legal counsel ifthe trial court determines the defendant has the financial resources to offset in whole or in part the costs of the legal services provided. See TEx. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.05(g) (West Supp. 2011). A defendant’s financial resources and ability to pay are explicit critical elements in the trial court’s determination ofthe propriety ofordering reimbursement ofcosts and fees. 

### Mayer v. 

### State, 309 S.W.3d 552, 556 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). When a defendant has been found to be indigent, it is presumed he remains indigent for the remainder ofthe proceedings in the case unless a material change in a defendant’s financial circumstances occurs. 

### See TEx. CoDE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.04(p). The trial court’s docket sheet contains a handwritten notation that orders attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,500, and thejudgment orders court costs in the amount of

### $2,736. The record shows appellantwasrepresentedbycourt-appointed counsel, andcontains writtenfindings fromthe trial court that appellant is indigent and was appointed counsel to represent him on the appeal. Because nothing in the record demonstrates appellanthad the financialresources to offsetthe costs oflegal services, we conclude the trial court erred by ordering appellant to pay a fee for courtappointed counsel. 

### See Mayer, 309 S.W.3d at 556—57. We sustain appellant’s issue. We modify thejudgment to delete the order that appellantpay $2,500 in attorney’s fees and to show appellant must pay $236 in court costs. 

### See TEX. R. App.

. 43.2(b); 

### Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27—28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); 

### Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529—30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet.ref’d). As modified, 

### we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/ 

# / JIM MOSELEY’ JMTICE Do Not Publish TEx. R. App, P. 47 100436F.U05

—3—

## uurt nfpia1 FiftI! Jitrirt nf ixui at Oalla 

### JUDGMENT KAREEM LEJON rvIARTIN. Appellant No. 05-10-00436-CR V. 4 HE S4 ATF OF IF \AS \ppcllu. Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. F07-54009-QR). Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Justices Fillmore and 

### lviyers participating. Based on the Court’s opinion ofthis date, thejudgment ofthe trial court is NTODIFlED as follows: The section entitled “Court Costs” is modified to show “$236.00.” As modified, we AFFiRM the trial court’sjudgment,

Judgment entered October 9, 2012.

JIM MOSELFS’

- JUSICE