In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-13-00243-CR
VICTORIA ANN DOUGLAS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 124th District Court
Gregg County, Texas
Trial Court No. 42769-B
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Following an open plea of guilty, Victoria Ann Douglas was convicted of theft and
sentenced to nine months’ confinement in a state jail facility. In a single point of error, she
contends on appeal that the trial court erred in assessing attorney’s fees against her because she
had been found indigent. We agree and modify the judgment by deleting the attorney’s fee
assessment.
The judgment reflects an assessment of $382.50 in attorney’s fees against Douglas. The
record also shows that, due to her indigent status, Douglas has been represented by appointed
counsel throughout these proceedings and received a copy of the appellate record free of charge.
Before a trial court can order an individual previously adjudged to be indigent to pay all
or part of the fees of appointed counsel, the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires the court
to determine whether the “defendant has financial resources that enable him to offset in part or in
whole” the cost of his appointed counsel. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art 26.05(g) (West
Supp. 2013). Further, Article 26.05(g) “requires a present determination of financial resources.”
Cates v. State, 402 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (speculation about future resources
not allowed). In this case, Douglas was deemed indigent, and the trial court made no further
finding regarding her financial status prior to the assessment of attorney’s fees. Consequently,
the trial court erred in assessing attorney’s fees against Douglas. In such a situation, the proper
remedy is to modify the judgment by removing the unauthorized fee assessment. Id.; see Martin
v. State, 405 S.W.3d 944, 948 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, no pet.).
2
We, therefore, modify the judgment of the trial court by deleting the $382.50 assessment
for the fees of Douglas’s court-appointed attorney. As modified, the trial court’s judgment is
affirmed.
Jack Carter
Justice
Date Submitted: May 8, 2014
Date Decided: May 30, 2014
Do Not Publish
3