MoreLaw Suites

Virtual Offices of Solo Practice Lawyer Starting at $200 a Month

Office With MoreLaw Suites and Reduce Your Overhead

918-582-3993 - Info@MoreLaw.com

On appeal, Asberry argues that the bill of costs should be modified to delete a note stating

that fees for his court-appointed attorney can be added later because there is no evidence that he is

able to pay them. The State concedes the issue. Asberry also argues that the trial court’s judgment

should be modified to reflect the correct date of offense, but a judgment nunc pro tunc has already

corrected that issue. As a result, we modify the bill of costs by deleting language stating that

attorney fees can be added later and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Because he was indigent, the trial court did not assess attorney fees against Asberry. The

bill of costs correctly showed that the judgment did not contain a fee for Asberry’s court-appointed

attorney, but also included a note that such fees could be added later. Under Article 26.05(g) of

the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, a trial court has the authority to order the reimbursement

of court-appointed attorney fees only if “the court determines that a defendant has financial

resources that enable him to offset in part or in whole the costs of the legal services provided,

including any expenses and costs.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.05(g). “[T]he

defendant’s financial resources and ability to pay are explicit critical elements in the trial court’s



1Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. We follow the precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals in deciding this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.

3

determination of the propriety of ordering reimbursement of costs and fees” of legal services

provided. Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759, 765–66 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (quoting Mayer

v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552, 556 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)).

Since there is no finding of the ability of Asberry to pay them, attorney fees could not be

assessed against him. See Cates v. State, 402 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); see also

Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Martin v. State, 405 S.W.3d 944, 946–

47 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, no pet.). Accordingly, Asberry asks that we modify the bill of costs by deleting the language stating that attorney fees can be added later.2 The State concedes

the point and agrees to the modification of the bill of costs. We sustain Asberry’s first point of

error.

In his second point of error, Asberry argues that the judgment contains the incorrect date

of offense. Because a judgment nunc pro tunc recently filed with this Court has corrected the

issue, we overrule Asberry’s last point of error.

We modify the bill of costs by deleting the language stating, “COURT APPOINTED

ATTORNEY FEES MAY BE ADDED AT A LATER DATE,” and affirm the trial court’s

judgment.