Further, and relevant to Appellant's claim, "[a] defendant's ability to pay is not relevant with respect to legislatively mandated court costs." Rivers v. State, No. 13-16-00407-CR, 2017 WL 2492610, at *1 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 8, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)
Further, and relevant to Appellant's claim, "[a] defendant's ability to pay is not relevant with respect to legislatively mandated court costs." Rivers v. State, No. 13-16-00407-CR, 2017 WL 2492610, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 8, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (alteration in original) (quoting Allen v. State, 426 S.W.3d 253, 258 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, no pet.); Martin v. State, 405 S.W.3d 944, 947 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, no pet.)). Therefore, indigent criminal defendants are not excused from paying mandatory court costs.
Several intermediate courts of appeals—including this Court—have determined that a defendant's ability to pay is not relevant to the imposition of legislatively mandated court costs, and, thus, have concluded that an indigent defendant can be assessed court costs. See Rivers v. State, No. 13-16-00407-CR, 2017 WL 2492610, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi June 8, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Stroud v. State, No. 09-14-00439-CR, 2016 WL 3136148, at *6 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 1, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Hernandez-Prado v. State, No. 03-15-00289-CR, 2016 WL 3144098, at *13 (Tex. App.—Austin May 26, 2016, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Allen v. State, 426 S.W.3d 253, 258-59 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, no pet.); Owen v. State, 352 S.W.3d 542, 546 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011, no pet.). Appellant acknowledges these authorities but argues that they "must be reconsidered" in light of the Texas Supreme Court's decision in Campbell v. Wilder.