## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 1494- 08 M EL A N I E D . M c FA TR I D G E, A ppe l l ant

v. THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON APP ELLANT ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE TENTH C OU RT OF APPE ALS

NAV ARR O CO UNTY P RI CE , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t i n w hi c h K ELL ER , P. J. , and W OMACK , J OHNS ON , K EASLE R , H ERVEY and H OL C OM B , J J ., jo in e d . M E YE RS , J. , f i l ed a c o n c u r r in g o p in io n . C OCHR AN , J. , di s s e nt e d. O P I N I O N W e gr ant ed t he appe l l ant ’ s pet i t i on for di s cr et i onar yr evi ew i n t hi s caus e t o exami ne t he cour t of appe al s ’ s hol di ng t hat t he t r i al cour t di d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n fi ndi ng t hat t he appe l l antw as not i ndi gentfor pur pos es of obt ai ni ng a fr ee r ecor d and t he as s i s t ance of
couns el for appea l
. B eca us e w e bel i eve t hat t he t r i al cour t ’ s deci s i on i s r eas onabl ys uppor t ed by t he record, w e fi nd no abu se of d i scr et i on and affir m t he j ud gm ent of the cou rtof ap peals
.McF atridg e — 2

1 Al tho ugh s he lis te d th e $5 50 a s “ Gr os s Wag e and Sa lary Inc ome ,” thea pp e lla nt d id n ot l ist any d e d u c t i o n s n o r

m a l l y att e n d ant t o th i s c at e g o r y o f i n c o m e , s u c ha s i n c o m e t ax , s o c i a l s e c ur i ty, or he a lthins ur anc e , n or

did sh e atta c h a

pa y stu b. Th e re c or d s ug g e sts that th e a pp e lla nt w a s a c tua lly self-e mployed, buying, r estoring , and sellingantiques. Ne verthe less, she l i s ted nothing unde r the heading , “Sel f- E mploy

ment Income.” Additionally , although the appe llant attache d a handf ul of rec eipts to her stateme nt, those rec eipts do not add up to the $484 worth of “g ener al ex penses” that she cla imed in her swor

n statement of indig ency . 2 SeeT EX . R. A PP . P.20.1(e) (“ .
. . the court reporte r . . . may challeng e the c laim of indige nce by filing—in the c ourt in which the aff idavit [ of indig ency] was filed—a c ontest to the aff idavit.”). F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL P OS TU RE I n J anuar yof 2008, t he t r i al cour t fo u n d t he appe l l ant , w ho w as r epr es ent ed by appoi nt ed couns el , gui l t y of dr i vi ng w hi l e i nt oxi cat ed. T he appe l l antgave t i m el ynot i ce of appea l and fil ed a s w or n s t at ement of i ndi gencyr eques t i ng t hatt he t r i al cour t appoi nt her
co u n sel fo r ap p ea l. S h e also fil ed a m o ti o n fo r a f ree co u rt rep o rt er’s rec o rd. In h er sw o rn sta tem e n t o f

in d ig e n c y , the a p p e llan t li ste d h e r m o n th lyin c o m e a s $ 5 5 0 , an d h e r m o n th ly “gene r al expens es ” as $484. U t i l i zi ng a mechani s m that i s avai l abl e i n ci vi l appea l s , t he 1

c o u rt re p o rte r f

ro m th e D W I tria l su b se q u e n tlyf iled a “ C o n tes t o f

A f f id a v it o f In a b ili tyto P ayC os t s ” i n w hi ch s he cha l l enged t he appe l l ant ’ s cl ai m of i ndi gency . T o s uppor t her 2

c o n t e s t , t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r r e l i e d o n a c o n v e r s a t i o n s h e h a d w i t h t h e a p p e l l a n t d u r i n g t h e D WI tr ial , w h ere in the ap p ell an t of fe red to tr ad e a n ti q u es f

o r a c o p yo f the rec o rd, w h ich th e c o u rt rep o rt er e sti m ated w o u ld co st $3 , 0 0 0
. T h e c o u rt rep o rt er d ec li n ed the a p p ell an t’ s o ff er. O ver t he cour s e of t hr ee da y s i n l at e Febr uar yof 2008, t he t r i al cour t hel d a hea r i ng t o det er m i ne w het her t he appel l ant w as i ndi gent . T he appel l ant di d not t es t i fyatt he hea r i ng.McF atridg e — 3

3 Ag ain, these r ece ipts do not add up to the amount of m onthly expenses she had listed on her sworn stateme nt of indige ncy . Howeve r, the trial c ourt neve r ca lled for f urther doc umentary verific ation of her

monthly expenses, and so the a

ppel l an t ’s d eclaration of e x penses, having be en sworn to, “ should be acc epted unless [i t is] suspe ct in a manner that verific ation would not remedy .” W hite he ad v . S tate , 130 S.W .3d 866, 875 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). 4 The a pp ellant said nothingabout any assets in her statement of indig ency . She made no mention of property , either real or persona l, that might be rea dily liquidated to pay the costs of a

n a pp e a l. 5 Therewas c onflictingevidenc e whe ther the a ppellant actually owned the house i n which she liv e d
. T h e tria l c o urt u lt im ate ly f o un d th is p r o p e rty to b e s u b je c t to a h o me s te a d e xe mption, and th e r e f o r e d i d n o tc o n s i d e r

i tana s s e tf

o r p ur p o s e s o f d e t e r m i n i n gth e a

p p e l l ant ’ s i n d i g e n c y. I ns t ead, s he ca l l ed herl andl or d as a w i t nes s , w ho t es t i fi ed t hat t he appe l l antpai d $200 a

m ont h for r ent . T he appe l l antal s o at t empt ed t o s how t hat , beca us e o f h er b ad credi t , s he coul d not es t abl i s h acc ount s i n her ow n name, pr es ent i ng a w i t nes s w ho t es ti fied that the
a p p e llan t’s e lec tricity b ill w a s in h is n a m e . W h e n p re ss e d , h o w e v e r, th is w itn e ss w a s u n a b le t o say w hy t he a pp e l l a nt c ou l d no t ha ve t he a c c ou nt i n he r own n a me. The a pp e l l ant al so off ered i nto evi den ce recei pts of h er m on t hlyexp enses. 3 T he St at e count er ed w i t h evi dence of t he appel l ant ’ s as s et s . I t pr es ent ed t es t i m ony 4 fr om t he cour t r epor t eraboutt he appe l l ant ’ s offe r att r ial to bar t erant i ques , ar gui ng t hat t hes e ant iqu es sh o u l d be cons i der ed an a s s etof t he appe l l ant . T he St at e l at ercal l ed an empl oy ee f

r om t he N avar r o C ount yA ppr ai s al D i s t r i ctt o t es t i fyt hatt he appe l l antw as l i s t ed i n t he count yr ecor ds as t he ow ner o f tw o pi ece s of r eal pr oper t y
— t he pr oper t yw her e t he appel l antl i ved and a s econd, non- exempt pr oper t y as s es s ed t o have a m ar ketval ue of $6, 670,

w i t h d e e d s d a t e d i n 1 9 9 7 a n d 2 0 0 2 , r e s p e c t i v e l y. 5McF atridg e — 4

6 Th e a pp e lla nt argue s that the tria l c ourt mis take nly a c c e pte d th e a

pp e lla nt’ s gross repor

ted T h e S tat e a lso introd u ce d ev iden ce to im p u g n th e v e ra cit yo f th e a p p ell an t’ s sw o rn
s t at ement of i ndi gency . T he appe l l ant ’ s i ndi gencys t at ement had i m p li ed t hata por t i on of her m ont hl y expens es w as devot ed t o t he suppor t of m i nor chi l dr en. I n or dert o s how t hat t he appe l l anthad no depe ndentchi l dr en pr es ent l yl i vi ng w i t h her , t he St at e off er ed a c opy
o f a c h ild -s u p p o rt lie n , f

ile d in 2 0 0 4 , s h o w in g “ u n p a id s u p p o rt in th e a m o u n t o f $ 5 ,8 3 4 .0 0 .” T h e S tate re q u e ste d ju d icia l n o tice o f th e lien to sh o w th a t th e a p p e llan t h a d n o d e p e n d e n ts liv in g w ith h e r th a t w o u ld c o n trib u te to h e r e x p e n se s. A lth o u g h th e re w e re n o o b jec tio n s to admi s s i on of t he chi l d- s uppor t l i en, the tr ial cour t nei t hert ook j udi ci al not i ce of i t , as
r eques t ed, nor everfor m al l yadmi t t ed i t i nt o evi dence
. T he t r i al cour t t hen as ked t he appel l ant t o s uppl y a copyof her2006 t ax r et ur n, w hi ch
s he had s ubm i t t ed i n s uppor t of an ear l i er aff i davi t r eques t i ng couns el for her t r i al
. A ft er t he St at e r es t ed, t he appel l ant al s o offe r ed cour t r ecor ds fr om heruns ucce s s ful at t empt t o have t enant s evi ct ed fr om her s econd, non- exempt pr oper t y i n A ugus t 2000, at t empt i ng t o s how t hatt hi s r eal pr oper t ynei t hergener at ed i n co m e n o r w as r eadi l yconver t i bl e t o cas h, and t her efor e sh o u ld n o t be cons i der ed as an as s et . A t t he conc l us i on of t he hea r i ng t he t r i al
c o u rt o ra lly a n n o u n c e d th a t it f o u n d th e a p p e lla n t “ n o lo n g e r i n d ig e n t.” L at er , the tr ia l cour t i s s ued w r i t t en fi ndi ngs of fa ctand conc l us i ons of l aw . B as ed upon t he appe l l ant ’ s i ncome- t ax r et ur n, t he tri al c o ur t found t hats he had a n i ncome of $ 1 0 ,9 0 5 f

o r th e 2 0 0 6 tax y e a r. T h e trial c o u rt a lso f o u n d th a t s h e h a d c u rre n t m o n th ly 6McF atridg e — 5

income for

2006, which was $10,905, rathe r than her net income of $5,590. The State c oncede s that thetria l c ourt

thu s e rr e d, but argue s th at the re c or d ne ve rt he le ss pr ov ide d the tria l c ourt wi th a mpl e rea son to doubt the appellant’s c laim, in her sworn state ment of indig ency , that her inc ome at the tim e of thehe ari ng , in

F e br ua ry of 20 08 , w a s o nly

$5 50 pe r m onth. In li ght of our u lti mate dispositi on, inf

ra , w e fi nd

thetria l c ourt ’s e rror

imm ate ri a l. 7 N AVAR R O C OUNTY S T A N D A RD S REL AT I NG T O TH E A PP O I N T M EN T O F C OU NS E L TO I ND I GE NT S § XI I(2) ( 2002). expens es o f $ 3 3 8
. 78, non- exempt r eal pr oper t yw i t h a val ue of $6, 670, and non- exempt p erso n al p rop erty , the an ti q u es, w o rt h $ 3 , 0 0 0
. A t the t im e of the ap p ell an t’ s h ea ri n g , a defe ndantqual i fi ed as i ndi gent i n N avar r o C ount y i f hi s net hous ehol d i ncome di d not exce ed 100% of t he U ni t ed Stat es D ep ar t m entof H eal t h and H um an Ser vi ces Pover t yG ui del i nes ( $ 1 0 , 4 0 0 i n 2 0 0 8 ) a n d t h e v a l u e o f h i s n o n - e x e mpt a s s e t s d i d n o t e x c e e d $ 1 , 0 0 0 or t he
es t i m at ed cos t of obt ai ni ng compet entpr i vat e l egal couns el
. A ppl y i ng t hes e cr i t er i a , th e t r i al 7

c o u rt f o u n d th a t th e a p p e llan t h a d b o th su f f icie n t in c o m e a n d su f

f icie n t n o n -e x e m p t as se ts t o exce ed t he t hr es hol d for i ndi gency . T he t r i al cour t fur t herdet er m i ned t hatt he appe l l ant fa il ed to r ebutt he St at e’ s evi dence atheri ndi gencyhear i ng and t hats he had be en
er r oneous l yappoi nt ed couns el i n her i ni t i al t r i al
. T he t r i al cour t expr es s l yconcl uded t hatt he appel l ant “i s not i ndi gent and has t he fi nanci al m eans and r es our ces t o empl oycouns el of her choi ce t o r epr es ent her on appea l
. ” H ow ever , t he t r i al cour t m ade no s epar at e r ul i ng on t he appel l ant ’ s r eques t for a fr ee r ecor d. T he fi ndi ngs of fa ctand conc l us i ons of l aw m ake no

m e n tio n o f

th e n o tic e o f

a c h ild -s u p p o rt lie n . T he appe l l ant , r epr es ent i ng her s el f, appea l ed t he t r i al cou r t ’ s i ndi gencydet er m i nat i on t o t he Tent h C our t of A ppeal s . I n a publ i s hed opi ni on, t he cour t of appe al s hel d t hatt he t r i alMcF atridg e — 6

8 Mc Fa tri dgev . S

tate , 262 S.W .3d 907, 912 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008). 9 I d
. L ikethetria l c ourt , th e c ourt of a pp e a ls m a de no sepa

ra te de te rm inatio n w ithre sp e c t to the fre e counse l and a f reerec ord , holding only that the re cord suppor

ted the trial c ourt’s deter mination that the appellant “is not indig ent.” Id
. 10 Appellant’s Petition for Discr etionary Review, at 2. 11 T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 1.051(b)
. 12 T EX . R. A PP . P. 20.2. 13 W hite he ad v . S tate , 1 3 0 S
. W
. 3 d

8 6 6 , 8 7 4 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 4 ) ( qu o t i n g Gray v

. Robinson , 744 S.W .2d 604, 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988)). co u rt ’s “f

ind ing s [w ere ] su p p o rt ed b y the ev iden ce . ” A cc o rdin g ly , it fo u n d the t ri al co u rt 8 di d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n fi ndi ng t he appe l l antt o be non- i ndi gent . T he appe l l antfi l ed 9 a pr o s e pet i t i on for di s cr et i o n ary revi ew chal l engi ng t he cour t of appe al s ’ s det er m i nat i on t hat t he t r i al cour t di d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on and ass er t i ng t hatt he cour t of appe al s bas ed its d e c is io n o n “ f

a ls e s ta te m e n ts a n d tw is te d f a c ts .” 10 S TANDA RD O F REVI EW A d e f e n d a n t is in d ig e n t f

o r pu rp o se s o f th e a p p o in tm e n t o f a p p e llate c o u n se l if h e is “notfi nanci al l yabl e t o empl oycouns el
. ” For pur pos es of qual i fy i ng as an i ndi genti n or der 11 t o r ece i ve a c opyof t he r ecor d fur ni s hed w i t hout char ge, a def endantm us t be unabl e t o “pay
o r g i v e s e c u r i t y f

o r t h e a p p e l l a t e r e c o r d
. ” I n d i g e n c yd e t e r mi n a t i o n s a r e ma d e a t t h e t i me 12 t he i s s ue i s r ai s ed and ar e deci ded on a cas e- by
- cas e bas i s . D et er m i ni n g ind igen cy for 13 p u rpo ses o f a p p o inti n g c o u n sel an d ind igen cy fo r pu rpo ses o f o b tai n ing a f ree rec o rd a reMcF atridg e — 7

14 W hitehead, 130 S.W .3d at 878. 15 Id
. As we have noted, howeve r, neither the trial court nor the court of appea ls se ems to have m a d e th e s e d e t e r

m i n at i o n s s e p ar at e l y. 16 T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 26.04(m)
. 17 T EX C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 26.04(l)
. 18 W hitehead, 130 S.W .3d at 878. 19 Id. at 874. di s cr et e i nqui r i es , but t he fa ct or s t o be cons i der ed ar e t he s ame. A defe ndantcan be found 14 in d ig e n t f

o r o n e p u r p o se w ith o u t b e in g f o u n d in d ig e n t f

o r th e o th e r. R e lev a n t to b o th

15 in d ig e n c y d e te rm in a tio n s a re “ th e d e f e n d a n t’s in c o m e , so u rc e o f in c o m e , as se ts, p ro p e rty
ow ned, out s t andi ng obl i gat i ons , nece s s a rye x pens es , t he number and age s of depe ndent s , and
s pous al i ncome t hati s avai l abl e t o t he def endant
. ” E ach c ount ys houl d have gui del i nes and

16 fi nanci al s t andar ds t hati t appl i es t o det er m i ne w het hera def endanti s i ndi gentfor pur pos es
o f a p p o in tin g c o u n se l. 17 T h is C o u rt has adopt ed a t w o- s t ep pr oces s t o gui de cour t s i n m aki ng i ndi gency det er m i nat i ons for pur pos es of a f r ee r ecor d for appea l
. F ir st , t he def endantm us t m ake a p rim a fa c ie s how i ng of i ndi gency . O nce the def endants at i s fi es t hi s i ni t i al bur den of 18 p ro d u c tio n , the b u rd e n th e n sh if ts to th e S tate to sh o w th a t th e d e f e n d a n t is n o t, i n f

a c t, i ndi gent . T hi s m eans , es s ent i al l y , t hatunl es s t her e i s s om e bas i s i n t he r ecor d t o fi nd t he

19 defe nd ant’ s p rim a fa c ie sh o w in g to b e in a c c u ra te o r u n tru e , the trial c o u rt sh o u ld a c c e p t itMcF atridg e — 8

20 Id. at 875-76. Onc e the de fenda nt has made out a pr im a fa c iecasefor indig ency , both the burden of produc t i o n an d th e ult imate burde n of per suasion fall upon the State to show that the de fe nd ant i s not

indige nt. This does not invariably mean that the State must ac tually prese nt a d d it io n a l e v id e n c e . Rath e r , it s im p ly me an s th at th e r e mu s t be somebasis in the rec ord, fr om whateve r source—including evidenc e embedde d in the defe ndant ’s own pr im a fa c iec a se—to question the def

en d ant’s indig ency . Unless thereis such evidenc e in the re cord f rom any source , howeve r, the fa ct that the burden has shifted to the State means that the tria l court must acc ept the de fe nd ant’ s pr im a fa c iecaseas dete rminative of indig ency . Id
.

21 Id
. 22 W hitehead, 1 3 0 S
. W
. 3 d

at8 7 4 (qu o t i n g Sn ok

ev . S tate , 78 0 S. W.2 d 2 10 , 2 13 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1989)).

23 Id . at 879. 24 Se eid . at 87 2 ( “ Ge ne ra l c on sid e ratio ns g ov e rn inga pp e llate re vie w a

pp ly he re . An a

pp e llate court may not consider fac tual asser tions that are outside the record, and a party cannot c ircumvent thepr oh ibi tio n b y su

bmi tti ng an af

fi davit fo r the fi rs t time on a pp e a l.” ) (f

oo tno te omi tte d) ; se eals o J an e c k a v . S tate , 9 37 S.W. 2d

45 6, 47 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ) (a n ap pe lla nt co uld no t ra ise a

c la im that he fa ced se veredepre s s i o n an d stress while wa iting for his case to be appea led bec ause the appellant ha d failed to e stablish a fac tual rec ord to support his claim). as s uffi ci ent t o fi nd hi m i ndi gent . A ft era def endantes t abl i s hes a p rim a fa c ie s how i ng of 20 in d ig e n c y , “ a n a p p e llate c o u rt c a n u p h o ld a trial co u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n o f n o n -in d ig e n c e o n ly i f t he r ecor d cont ai ns evi dence s uppor t i ng s uch a de t er m i nat i on. ” I n W hi t ehead , we 21

r ecogni zed t hatt he t w o- s t ep pr oces s out l i ned above al s o appl i es w hen det er m i ni ng w het her
a p e rso n is in d ig e n t f

o r p u rp o se s o f

a p p o in ted c o u n se l. A re v iew in g c o u rt sh o u ld u p h o ld 22

a t r i al cour t ’ s r ul i ng deny i ng i ndi gent s t at us onl y i f i t fi nds t hat t he t r i al cour t , havi ng ut i l i zed th is tw o -ste p p ro c e ss , “re a so n a b ly ” b e liev e d th e d e f e n d a n t w a s n o t in d ig e n t. 23 A rev iew ing co u rt m ay n o t con side r fa cts t h at w ere n o t d ev elop ed in the re co rd. In 24McF atridg e — 9

25 Mc Fa tri dgev . S

tate , 262 S.W .3d, at 912. t hi s cas e w e must det er m i ne w het her , bas ed o n t he r ecor d fr om t he i ndi gencyhear i ng and undert he fr amew or k des cr i bed above, t he par t i es s at i s fi ed t he nec es s ar ybur dens of p ro d u c tio n a n d p e rsu a sio n . T h e a p p e llan t co n ten d s th a t sh e m e t h e r e v id e n ti a ry b u rd e n in h e r in iti a l in d ig e n c y h e a rin g , e n tit lin g h e r to a f re e re c o rd a n d a p p o in ted c o u n se l f o r a p p e a l. T he St at e conce des as m uch but ans w er s t hati t s r ebut t al w as s uffi ci entt o cas t doubt on t he defe ndant ’ s i ndi gency cl ai m . I f t he St at e i s cor r ectt hati t has car r i ed i t s bur den t o pr oduce rebut t al evidence, t he is sue t hen dev olves i nto w hether i t can b e sai d that t he S t at e al so
s at i s fi ed i t s bur den of pe r s uas i on i n l i ght of al l t he evi dence pr oduced a t t he hea r i ng. A N A L Y S IS A t t he hea r i ng, the ap p el l antpr es ent ed s om e evi dence s uppor t i ng heri ndi gencyby pr o v i d i n g h e r s wor n s t a t e me n t a n d t e s t i mon y a b o u t h e r r e n t e x p e n s e s . W e a g r ee w i t h t he
cour t of appe al s t hatt he appe l l antm ade a p rim a fa c ie s how i ng of i ndi gency and sat i s fi ed her i ni t i al bur den of pr oduct i on, and, i n t he abs ence of anyevi dence att hatpoi nt t o cas t doubt 25 on hercl ai m s , herbur den of persua sion. T he bur den of pr oduct i on and per s uas i on t hen
s hi ft ed t o t he St at e t o r efut e t he appe l l ant ’ s pr offe r ed evi dence
. Th e Ap p e l l a n t ’ s I n c o me In N avarr o C o un t y , an ap pell ant i n 2 00 8 w as noti ndi genti f ei t herh i s t a k e - h o me
w ages or s al ar y or hi s nets el f- empl oy m enti ncome excee ded $10, 400 or t he val ue of hi s non-McF atridg e — 10

26 N AVAR R O C OUNTY S T A N D A RD S REL AT I NG T O TH E A PP O I N T M EN T O F C OU NS E L TO I ND I GE NT S § XI I (2002); 2008 Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines, 73 Fe d. Reg . 3971 (Jan. 23, 2008).

27 The c ourt of appe als compounded the trial court’ s mistake when it observe d: The [trial] court based its finding r eg arding [the appellant’ s] income on he r 2006 fede ral income tax return in which s h e cla imed gross business income of $1 0, 90 5 ( and

ne t prof it o f $ 5, 99 0). [ Th e a

pp e lla nt] o ff e re d n o e vid e nc e to e xpla in how or why

her inc ome in 2008 is less than it was two year s earlier. McFatridge , su

pra , at 912. The Na

varr o County

standard looks to the “ net household income”of a s e lf
- e mp lo ye d p e r s o n , n o t h is gr o s s b u s in e s s in c o me , in d e te r mi n in g in d ig e n c y . It is th is “net ho us e ho ld i nc ome ” that mu st e xce e d $ 1, 00 0 o r t he c os t of ob ta ini ngc omp e te nt l e g a l c ou ns e l to e nti tle an a

pp e lla nt to ind ig e nt status . In fa c t, the a pp e lla nt’ s ann ua l inc ome ($ 55 0 x 12 months = $ 6 , 6 0 0 ) w a s a c tu a l l y mo reth an h er “n et profit” in 2006, but neve rtheless we ll below the $10,400 po ve rt y le ve l. e x e m p t as se ts e x c e e d e d $ 1 ,0 0 0 o r th e e stim a ted c o st o f o b tain in g c o m p e ten t leg a l co u n se l. 26 T he St at e has conce ded t hat t he t r i al cour t er r ed t o r egar d t he appe l l ant ’ s gr os s i ncome for t he y ear 200 6 ($10 , 90 5) as pr ob at i ve o f her net i nco m e for 20 08
. It argues, nev ert heles s, 27 that the tri al co u rt h ad en o u g h rea so n to d o u b t t h e a p p e ll an t’ s ass erti o n in h er sw o rn
s t at ement of i ndi gencyt hatheri n com e w as onl y$550 perm ont h. W e pr et er m i t any di s cus s i on of t he suff

i ci encyof t he appe l l ant ’ s i ncome t o r ai s e herabove t he pover t yl evel b e c a u se w e h o ld th a t, i n a n ye v e n t, th e re c o rd su p p o rts th e trial c o u rt’s f in d in g
— if

o n ly b a re ly

— th a t sh e h a d su f f icie n t as se ts to a f

f o rd b o th a re c o rd a n d a p p e llate c o u n se l. T h e A p p ell a n t’s N o n -E x em p t A ssets T he appel l ant now ar gues t hat t he t r i al cour t abus ed i t s di s cr et i on by fi ndi ng t hat t he appel l antcoul d us e heras s et s t o fi nance her appea l
. She t r i es t hr ough her br i ef t o i nt r oduceMcF atridg e — 11

28 Appellant’s B rief on the Merits, at 18. 29 W hitehead, 130 S.W .3d, at 872. new fac t s t o expl ai n t he evi dence i n t he re cor d i n or der t o r es ol ve ambi gui t i es i n herfavor on appea l
. For exampl e, t he appe l l ant cl ai m s t hat t he r ecor d cont ai ns no evi dence t o s how t hather an ti q u es coul d be s ol d. B ut nei t herdoes t he r ecor d aff i r m at i vel ys how t hat t hey 28 coul d notbe s ol d, and t he appe l l ant ’ s at t empt t o bar t er t hem for t he cour t r epor t er ’ s s er vi ces d e m o n stra tes a b e lief

o n h e r p a rt th a t th e y h a d a m a rk e t v a lu e o f a t lea st $ 3 ,0 0 0 . A p p e llate

r evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o onl yw hati s cont ai ned i n t he r ecor d. T he pr oper pl ace for t he appe l l ant 29 t o have e xpl ai ned t hat the ant i ques w er e i n r eal i t yw or t hl es s , not w i t hs t andi ng her

r epr es ent at i ons t o t he cour t r epor t er , w as at herhear i ng. A bs entanys uch t es t i m onyi n t he

r ecor d, t he t r i al cour t di d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n fi ndi ng t hat t he cour t r epor t er ’ s t es t i m ony
s at isfied the S t at e’ s bur den of pr oduct i on, and, ul t i m at el y , per s uas i on w i t h r es pectt o t he
a v a ilab ili tyo f

th e a n tiq u e s to c o n trib u te to th e c o sts o f th e a p p e llan t’s a p p e a l. Si m i l ar l y , i f t he appel l ant w i s hed t o r es pond t o t he St at e’ s evi dence t endi ng t o s how th a t th e a p p e llan t ac tu a llyo w n e d th e se c o n d , n o n -e x e m p t r e a l p ro p e rty , the a p p e llan t sh o u ld have pr es ent ed addi t i onal , s uppor t i ng evi dence t o t hat eff ect at t he i ndi gency hear i ng. T he St at e pr es ent ed count yr ecor ds sh o w ing that t he appe l l antw as t he r ecor d ow nerof t hat pr oper t y , and t hat i t had an appr ai s ed val ue of $6, 670. T o r ebutt he St at e’ s pr es ent at i on, t he appel l antpr oduced c our t r ecor ds di s m i s s i ng t he evi ct i on p roc eedi ngs br ought byt he ap p ell an t fo r he r sec o n d , n o n -ex em p t pro p ertyfo r l ac k o f ju ri sd ic tio n . T h e a p p ell an t’ sMcF atridg e — 12

30 N AVAR R O C OUNTY S T A N D A RD S REL AT I NG T O TH E A PP O I N T M EN T O F C OU NS E L TO I ND I GE NT S § XI I(2)( a)( 2) (2002) . In her brief on discr etionary revie w, the appellant argues that, by law, the a ppellant would also owe interest on the unpaid child support. Whil e this may well be true , there is nothing in the re cord to support this asser tion, and no indication of what that interest might h av e am o unt edt o b y

th e t i m e o f th e i n d i gen cy h eari n g. couns el ar gued t hatt hi s di s m i s s al s how ed t hatt h e ap p ell an t di d not have c l eart i t l e t o t he p ro p e rty , an d th a t itw a s th e re f o re u n a v a ilab le f

o r p u rp o se s o f ra isin g f

u n d s f o r h e r a p p e llate
c o s t s . B u t t h e r e w a s n o e x p l a n a t o r y t es t i m ony to this ef fe ct, an d the a p p raisal dist ri ct reco rd ind icates t hatt he pr oper t yw as convey ed t o t he appe l l anti n 2002, aft ert he dat e of t he at t em pted evi ct i on proceed i ng s i n 2 00 0. O n thi s st at e of the record, t he tr i al cou rtco u ld

r at i onal l y have found t hat t he appel l anthad atl eas t $9, 670 ( $3, 000 i n ant i ques pl us $6, 670 in n o n -e x e m p t re a l p ro p e rty ) w o rth o f a ss e ts to d e v o te to th e c o sts o f h e r a p p e a l. T he appe l l antar gues t hatherchi l d- s uppor t obl i gat i on s houl d have be en cons i der ed, pos i t i ng t hatt he fa i l ur e t o do s o cons t i t ut ed an a bus e of di s cr et i on. T h e not i ce of chi l dsu p po rtl i en, dated A ug ust 20 04 , st at es t hat t he ap pell ant ow ed $ 5, 83 4 in unp ai d sup po rt. A s s um i ng t he debtw as s t i l l w hol l yout s t andi ng, and s ubt r act i ng t hi s amount fr om t he $9, 670
o f a ss e ts th e trial c o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t th e a p p e llan t o w n e d , w o u ld le a v e a p p e llan t w ith $ 3 , 8 3 6 o f

a s s e t s
— a n a m o u n t t h a t s t i l l e x c e e d s N a v a r r o C o u n t y s t a n d a r d s f o r i n d i g e n c y. 30 I n anyevent , t he not i ce of chi l d- s uppor t l i en w as never for m al l yi nt r oduced i nt o evi dence at t h e h e a r i n g a n d wa s n o t me n t i o n e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s f i n d i n g s a n d c o n c l u s i o n s . W e p r e s u me t hatt he t r i al cour t di d not t ake t he l i en i nt o acc ount ; nor w as i t an abus e of di s cr et i on for t he t r i al co u rt to fa i l t o do s o w hen nei t herpar t yi ns i s t ed t hati t s houl d dur i ng t he i ndi gencyMcF atridg e — 13

31 We n o te th at th e c o urt o f a p p e a ls ma d e n o me nti o n wh ats o e v e r o f th e n o ti ce ofa childsu pp or t li e n in its op ini on

on a pp e a l. 32 In her motion for a

fre e cour t reporte r’s re cord, theappellant a sserted that the cour t reporte r had estimated the cost of the rec ord to be only $2,000. Her e, we g ive the appe llant the benef it of the doubt by relying on the greater amount, $3,000, that the court repor ter testified she told the a

ppellant was the e stimated cost of the re cord during the ir mid-trial conve rsation. hear i ng. 31 A ft err evi ew i ng al l of t he evi dence att he i ndi gency hear i ng, t he t r i al cour t found t he S tat e’s c h a ra c te ri za ti o n o f th e a p p ell an t’ s ass ets t o b e m o re p ersu asiv e. If the re p o rt er’s
re c o rd c o st $ 3 ,0 0 0 , th e a p p e llan t w o u ld h a v e a t lea st $ 6 ,6 7 0 w o rth o f a ss e ts le f

t o v e r to 32 dev ote t o the c ost of an app el l at e at t orney . T he recor d con t ai ns no est i m at e of w hat t he co st of compet entpr i vat e l egal couns el w oul d be fora t ypi cal D W I appea l i n N avar r o C ount y , but

w e h a v e n o re a so n to b e liev e it sh o u ld e x c e e d $ 6 ,6 7 0 . It i s n o t th e re v iew in g c o u rt’s jo b to det er m i ne w het hert he appel l ant w as i ndi gent for pur pos es of appeal
. R at her , t he r evi ew i ng
c o u rt’s r o le is to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e e v id e n c e p ro d u c e d a t th e in d ig e n c yh e a rin g su p p o rts t he t r i al cour t ’ s ul t i m at e det er m i nat i on. For pur pos es of a fr ee r ecor d, w e w i l l uphol d a t r i al
cour t ’ s non- i ndi gencyfi ndi ng i f t her e i s cr edi bl e evi dence i n t he r ecor d s up p or t i ng s uch a fi ndi ng. For pur pos es of appoi nt ed appel l at e counse l , w e w i l l uphol d a det er m i nat i on of noni ndi gencyi f t he tri al c o u rt r eas onabl ybel i eved, bas ed on t he r ecor d evi dence , t hat t he d e f e n d a n t w a s n o t in d ig e n t. B e c a u s e w e h o ld th a t th e p ro p e r p lac e f o r a n a p p e llan t to i nt r oduce evi dence chal l engi ng t he St at e’ s r ebut t al evi dence i s t he i ni t i al i ndi gencyhear i ng,
n o t on ap p ea l or i n a p eti ti o n fo r discre ti o n ary rev iew , w e h o ld tha t t h e tri al co u rt ’sMcF atridg e — 14

det er m i nat i ons w er e r eas onabl ys uppor t ed byt he evi dence i n bot h i ns t ance s ( fr ee r ecor d and app el l at e cou nsel ). A ccordi ng l y , w e affir m t he judgm ent of t he co urt of ap peals
.

D el i ver ed: J anuar y27, 2010 P ub l i sh