In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-16-00097-CR
IN RE JAMES CRAIG SUPPLEE
Original Mandamus Proceeding
Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
James Craig Supplee, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, asking
this Court to direct the Honorable Laurine J. Blake of the 336th Judicial District Court of Fannin
County to amend his judgments of conviction and bills of cost to remove costs allegedly assessed
for the attorney fees of his appointed counsel. In his petition for writ of mandamus, Supplee alleges
that the attorney fees were wrongfully assessed against him since there was no finding by the trial
court that he is no longer indigent.
Mandamus relief will be granted only when the record establishes (1) a clear abuse of
discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate
remedy at law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); see
In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204, 207 (Tex. 2009) (orig.
proceeding). The relator must provide this Court with a record sufficient to establish the right to
mandamus relief. Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 187 S.W.3d 197, 198–
99 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3.
Unless there is proof and a finding that he is no longer indigent, court-appointed attorney
fees may not be assessed against an indigent defendant. Cates v. State, 402 S.W.3d 250 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2013); Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). If there is no such
finding, the trial court errs when it assesses attorney fees against an indigent defendant. Martin v.
State, 405 S.W.3d 944 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, no pet.). However, such an alleged error
must be attacked through a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction that contains the
2
assessment, if available, not by mandamus. In re Maxwell, No. 06-14-00067-CV, 2014 WL
4264935, *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Aug. 29, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Supplee provided copies of the judgments of conviction, each of which indicates that
Supplee pled guilty to each particular charged offense. In addition, there is some indication in his
Appendix that the punishment recited in the judgments exceeded the punishment agreed to by
Supplee. On this record, we are unable to determine whether Supplee had a right to appeal, or, if
necessary, he obtained permission from the trial court to appeal. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.
art. 44.02 (West 2006).
In addition, although Supplee provided copies of several documents entitled “Criminal
Court Cost from 1-1-10 to present,” there is nothing on these documents that indicate that they
originated from the District Clerk of Fannin County or that they correspond to the causes of action
reflected in the judgments of conviction. Also, Supplee has failed to attach a signed verification
that he has reviewed the petition and that the factual statement in the petition is supported by
competent evidence. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). On this record, we are unable to determine
whether the trial court included court-appointed attorney fees in the costs assessed against Supplee
in the judgments of conviction.
3
Supplee has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to mandamus relief. We deny his
petition.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: May 26, 2016
Date Decided: May 27, 2016
Do Not Publish
4