IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
JULY 3, 2003
______________________________
IN RE CITY OF CANYON, RELATOR _______________________________
Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.
ORDEROn July 3, 2003, came on to be considered the Motion for Emergency Relief filed by relator City of Canyon pursuant to Tex. R. App. R. 52.10 and in connection with its Petition for Writ of Mandamus. By its motion, the City seeks this court's order staying enforcement of part of an order signed on June 30, 2003, in trial court Cause No. 53,045-A in the 47th District Court of Randall County, Texas, by the Honorable David L. Gleason, Senior Judge (the "trial court order").
The Motion for Emergency Relief is granted. See Tex. R. App. R. 52.10(b). That part of the trial court order that reads as follows is stayed pending further order of this court:
(2) The City Clerk is ordered to present the Petition to the City Commission for its consideration at its next regularly scheduled meeting on July 7, 2003 or at the earliest time allowed by law.
So ordered.
Per Curiam
NO. 07-10-0090-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
NOVEMBER 16, 2010
______________________________
JASMAN EDWARD WILLIAMS,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
______________________________
FROM THE 242nd DISTRICT COURT OF SWISHER COUNTY;
NO. B 4215-08-10; HON. ED SELF, PRESIDING
______________________________
Memorandum Opinion
______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Jasman Edward Williams (appellant) pled guilty to forgery and was placed on deferred adjudication probation for three years. Subsequently, the State filed to adjudicate appellant guilty and a hearing was held. The trial court did find that appellant had violated conditions of probation and rendered a judgment adjudicating appellant guilty. Furthermore, the trial court found that appellant was able to pay attorneys fees and order[ed] [appellant] to pay attorneys fees in the amount of $500.00. Appellant appeals that order. As modified, we affirm.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay $500 in attorneys fees. This is so, according to appellant, because the evidence at the adjudication hearing showed that at the time of the hearing he had only been employed two or three weeks, that he was behind on his financial obligations to probation and nothing of record showed he had the ability to pay for his court appointed attorney. Therefore, the evidence was insufficient to support the trial courts order. The State agrees with appellant and requests that we reform the judgment to delete the order requiring Appellant to pay $500.00 for attorneys fees.
In order to assess attorney's fees, the trial court must first determine that the defendant has financial resources that enable him to offset in part or in whole the cost of the legal services provided. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.05(g) (Vernon 2009). And the record must reflect some factual basis to support the determination that the defendant is capable of paying attorney's fees. Barrera v. State, 291 S.W.3d 515, 518 (Tex. App.Amarillo 2009, no pet.) (per curiam); Perez v. State, 280 S.W.3d 886, 887 (Tex. App.Amarillo 2009, no pet.).
Here, even though the trial courts judgment finds that appellant has the ability to pay $500 in attorneys fees, nothing of record supports this finding. Therefore, we find that the order to pay attorneys fees is improper because the evidence is legally insufficient to support the finding.
Accordingly, we sustain the issue, modify the judgment to delete the passage directing appellant to pay an attorneys fee of $500, and affirm the judgment as modified.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.