Stuckey v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Stuckey v. State

    NO. PD-0286-15 (Tex. Crim. App. May. 20, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    The Court of Appeals, citing Wiley v. State, 410 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), held that Appellant forfeited his complaint because he failed to object at the time that he was placed on community supervision. Stuckey v. State, No. 07-14-00082-CR, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 1483 (Tex. App.—Amarillo February 12, 2015) (not designated for publication). Appellant has filed a petition for discretionary review in which he argues, inter alia, that the Court of Appeals erred to reject his argument regarding his community supervision fees on the grounds that he failed to object at the time that he was placed on community supervision.

  2. Stuckey v. State

    No. 07-14-00082-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 22, 2015)

    So the matter of attorney's fees being assessed as reparations is not before us. Having rejected appellant's complaints, we reaffirm our prior decision rendered in Stuckey v. State, No. 07-14-00082-CR, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 1483 (Tex. App.— Amarillo February 12, 2015). Thus, we modify the judgment of the trial court to reflect that the reparations due from appellant are $5,365 and affirm the judgment as modified.