From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mumphrey v. State

Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
Aug 31, 2017
No. 06-17-00050-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 31, 2017)

Opinion

No. 06-17-00050-CR

08-31-2017

JOHN ALLEN MUMPHREY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the 188th District Court Gregg County, Texas
Trial Court No. 43,486-A Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

John Allen Mumphrey pled guilty to felony driving while intoxicated, and was sentenced to ten years' incarceration. Pursuant to his plea agreement, the sentence was suspended, and Mumphrey was placed on community supervision for a period of ten years. Mumphrey's community supervision was thereafter revoked, and he was sentenced to a period of five years' incarceration and ordered to pay $457.00 in court-appointed attorney fees.

In his sole issue on appeal, Mumphrey claims that because he was indigent, the trial court erred in assessing attorney fees against him. Pursuant to 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. This Article states:

The State concedes the error.

(g) If the judge determines that a defendant has financial resources that enable the defendant to offset in part or in whole the costs of the legal services provided to the defendant in accordance with Article 1.051(c) or (d), including any expenses and costs, the judge shall order the defendant to pay during the pendency of the charges or, if convicted, as court costs the amount that the judge finds the defendant is able to pay.
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.05(g) (West Supp. 2016). "[T]he defendant's financial resources and ability to pay are explicit critical elements in the trial court's determination of the propriety of ordering reimbursement of costs and fees." 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)). Here, the record reflects that Mumphrey was found to be indigent by the trial court. The record does not contain any determination or finding by the trial court that Mumphrey had any financial resources or was able to pay the appointed attorney fees. Thus, the assessment of the $457.00 in attorney fees for counsel appointed to represent Mumphrey during the revocation proceedings was erroneous and should be redacted. 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.).

The trial court also appointed Mumphrey counsel on appeal.

We sustain Mumphrey's sole point of error and modify the judgment by deleting the assessment of $457.00 attorney fees from the judgment.

As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice Date Submitted: August 31, 2017
Date Decided: August 31, 2017 Do Not Publish


Summaries of

Mumphrey v. State

Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
Aug 31, 2017
No. 06-17-00050-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 31, 2017)
Case details for

Mumphrey v. State

Case Details

Full title:JOHN ALLEN MUMPHREY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

Date published: Aug 31, 2017

Citations

No. 06-17-00050-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 31, 2017)