Court Opinion

ID: 9953486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 07:13:29.826114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:00:23.302761
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-23-00271-CR
                               __________________

                   HORACE MORRIS LASSIEN, Appellant

                                         V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 128th District Court
                       Orange County, Texas
                     Trial Cause No. A220262-R
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A grand jury indicted Appellant Horace Morris Lassien for the offense of

murder for intentionally and knowingly causing the death of Lorenza Bias by

shooting him with a firearm. Lassien pleaded “not guilty.” A jury found Lassien

guilty, and Lassien elected to have the trial court assess punishment. After a hearing

on punishment, the trial court sentenced Lassien to thirty years of confinement. The

judgment includes an assessment for reimbursement of attorney’s fees, which

                                          1
Lassien challenges in one issue on appeal. As discussed below, we affirm the trial

court’s judgment of conviction as modified.

      The record reflects that the trial court appointed trial counsel and appellate

counsel to represent Lassien, because Lassien was indigent. The trial court did not

mention reimbursement of fees for attorney’s services in its oral pronouncement.

The written judgment assesses court costs of $290.00 and reimbursement of fees of

$13,065.53, which includes $13,000.53 in fees for court-appointed counsel. The

itemized Bill of Costs shows $290.00 under the heading “Court Costs” and

$13,065.53 under the heading “Reimbursement Fees.” According to the record, the

“Reimbursement Fees” amount consists of $13,000.53 for court-appointed

attorney’s fees, $50.00 for a fee for the sheriff, and $15.00 for a time payment.

      In his sole issue, Lassien challenges the amount assessed for “reimbursement

fees” in the judgment of conviction. Lassien argues that the assessment of court-

appointed attorney’s fees was error because there was no finding that Lassien’s

financial circumstances had changed. The State concedes error on this point and

agrees that Lassien’s conviction and sentence should be affirmed as modified to

delete the court-appointed attorney’s fees.

      Without a change in a defendant’s indigent status, a trial court cannot impose

an award of attorney’s fees in the judgment against a defendant who remains indigent

when the judgment is pronounced. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 26.04(p)

                                          2
(stating an indigent defendant is presumed to remain indigent unless a material

change in the defendant’s financial circumstances occurs), 26.05(g); Wiley v. State,

410 S.W.3d 313, 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Roberts v. State, 327 S.W.3d 880,

883-84 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2010, no pet.). Article 26.05(g) provides that a judge

shall order a defendant to pay a reimbursement fee to offset in part or in whole the

cost of legal services provided to the defendant “[i]f the judge determines that [the]

defendant has financial resources” to do so. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art.

26.05(g).

      The record in this case does not demonstrate that the trial court found a

material change in Lassien’s financial circumstances. And the record does not

reflect, nor do the parties argue, that the State was precluded from presenting

evidence on Lassien’s financial resources and ability to pay for reimbursement of

court-appointed attorney’s fees. See Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552, 557 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2010). Therefore, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion by

assessing reimbursement for court-appointed attorney’s fees. See Tex. Code Crim.

Proc. Ann. arts. 26.04(p), 26.05(g); Roberts, 327 S.W.3d at 884 (concluding trial

court abused its discretion by taxing indigent defendant with attorney’s fees). We

sustain Lassien’s issue as to the reimbursement amount for court-appointed

attorney’s fees of $13,000.53.

                                          3
      The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure authorize us to render the judgment

the trial court should have rendered. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(c). Because the record

does not support the award of $13,000.53 for the reimbursement of attorney’s fees,

we modify the judgment by deleting the reimbursement fees award of $13,065.53

and replacing it with $65.00. Otherwise, we affirm the trial court’s judgment as

modified.

      AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

                                                         LEANNE JOHNSON
                                                              Justice

Submitted on March 13, 2024
Opinion Delivered March 20, 2024
Do Not Publish

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.

                                         4