Joshua Daniel Ardry v. State ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
12-14-00143-CR
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS
TYLER, TEXAS
2/18/2015 8:15:38 PM
CATHY LUSK
CLERK
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
NO. 12-14-00143-CR FILED IN
12th COURT OF APPEALS
TYLER, TEXAS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 2/18/2015 8:15:38 PM
12TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CATHY S. LUSK
Clerk
TYLER, TEXAS
JOSHUA ARDRY,
APPELLANT
VS.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE
ON APPEAL IN CAUSE NUMBER 114-0955-11
FROM THE 114th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
OF SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
HONORABLE CHRISTI KENNEDY, JUDGE PRESIDING
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
JAMES W. HUGGLER, JR.
100 E. FERGUSON, SUITE 805
TYLER, TEXAS 75702
903-593-2400
STATE BAR NUMBER 00795437
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
APPELLANT:
Joshua Ardry
APPELLANT’S TRIAL COUNSEL
Melvin Thompson
8108 S. Wall
Tyler, Texas 75701
903-596-7856
APPELLANT’S APPELLATE COUNSEL
James Huggler
100 E. Ferguson, Suite 805
Tyler, Texas 75702
903-593-2400
903-593-3830 (fax)
APPELLEE
The State of Texas
APPELLEE’S TRIAL COUNSEL
J. Patrick Murphy
Jacob Putman
Lucas Machicek
Chris Gatewood
Whitney Tharpe
Smith County Criminal District Attorney’s Office
100 N. Broadway, 4th Floor
Tyler, Texas 75702
903-590-1720
903-590-1719 (fax)
APPELLEE’S APPELLATE COUNSEL
Michael West
Smith County Criminal District Attorney’s Office
100 N. Broadway, 4th Floor
ii
Tyler, Texas 75702
903-590-1720
903-590-1719 (fax)
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
ISSUE PRESENTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
ISSUE ONE: The trial court erred in imposing attorney fees
following a finding that Mr. Ardry was indigent and was
appointed counsel.
STATEMENT OF FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
ISSUE ONE, RESTATED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A. Law on Attorney Fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
B. Standard of Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
C. Application to These Facts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
D. Remedy and Relief Requested.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
PRAYER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.04(p) (West 2010).. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.05(g) (West 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 103.001 (West 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 102.001-.142 (West 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 102.021 (West 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 103.006 (West 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §22.04(a)(1) and (e) (West 2010).. . . . . . . . . . 1, 3
CASES
Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). . . . . . . 6, 7
Howell v. State, 175 S.W.3d 786, 792 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).. . . . . . . . 8
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781,
61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385, 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). . . . . 7, 8
Johnson v. State, 405 S.W.3d 350, 354 (Tex. App. – Tyler
2013, no pet). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 8
Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552, 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). . . . . . . 5, 8
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 380 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). . . . 8
Owen v. State, 352 S.W.3d 542, 5148 (Tex. App. – Amarillo
2011, no pet). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7
Riles v. State, No. PD-1757-13, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 135
(Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 4, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). . . . . . . . . . 6
Will. v. State, 332 S.W.3d 694, 699 (Tex. App. – Amarillo
2011, pet. denied). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 8
v
RULES
TEX. R. APP. PROC. 9.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
TEX. R. APP. PROC. 38. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
vi
NO. 12-14-00143-CR
JOSHUA ARDRY § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
APPELLANT §
§
VS. § 12TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
THE STATE OF TEXAS, §
APPELLEE § TYLER, TEXAS
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE JUSTICES
THEREOF:
Comes now Joshua Ardry, (“Appellant”), by and through his attorney
of record, James Huggler, and pursuant to the provisions of TEX. R. APP.
PROC. 38, et seq., respectfully submits this brief on appeal.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant was indicted in Cause Number 114-0955-11 for the first
degree felony offense of injury to a child. I CR 11; see TEX. PENAL CODE
1
References to the Clerk’s Record are designated “CR” with a roman numeral preceding
“CR” indicating the correct volume and an arabic numeral following “CR” specifying the correct
1
ANN. §22.04(a)(1) and (e) (West 2010). Mr. Ardry entered a plea of guilty
pursuant to an agreement and received deferred adjudication probation.
I CR 16-17; II RR 18, 22.2
The State filed a motion to proceed to final adjudication, Mr. Ardry
entered true pleas to six allegations. I CR 48-52, 59; V RR 10-14.
Following evidence and argument of counsel, the court sentenced Mr.
Ardry to forty years confinement. I CR 54-55; V RR 47. Notice of appeal
was timely filed on May 30, 2014. I CR 63. This Brief is timely filed on
or before February 19, 2015 following proper extension granted by this
Court.
page in the record.
2
References to the Reporter’s Record are designated “RR” with a roman numeral
preceding “RR” indicating the correct volume, and an arabic numeral following “RR” specifying
the correct page.
2
ISSUE PRESENTED
ISSUE ONE: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING ATTORNEY
FEES FOLLOWING A FINDING THAT MR. ARDRY WAS INDIGENT
AND WAS APPOINTED COUNSEL.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Appellant was indicted in Cause Number 114-0955-11 for the first
degree felony offense of injury to a child. I CR 1; see TEX. PENAL CODE
ANN. §22.04(a)(1) and (e) (West 2010). Mr. Ardry entered a plea of guilty
pursuant to an agreement and received ten years deferred adjudication
probation. I CR 16-17; II RR 18, 22. The State filed two applications to
proceed to final adjudication in the case. I CR 45-46; IV RR 26-27.
The second application to revoke included allegations that Mr.
Ardry: (1) was the same person placed on deferred adjudication; (2) that
he moved his residence without notification; (3) that he possessed
methamphetamine; (4)that he consumed methamphetamine; (5) that he
failed to pay for three urine tests; (6) that he had contact with law
enforcement and did not report the contact to probation; (7) that he failed
to pay the supervision fee for three months; and (8) that he failed to report
3
five times. I CR 48-52. Mr. Ardry entered true pleas to all the
allegations, except the failure to pay for urine tests and reporting contact
with law enforcement. I CR 59, 83; V RR 10-14. Following evidence and
argument of counsel, the court sentenced Mr. Ardry to forty years
confinement. I CR 54-55; V RR 47. Further discussion of relevant facts
is included below.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The error for this Court to consider involves the improper
assessment of court costs. The trial court improperly ordered
reimbursement of attorney fees after Mr. Ardry was found to be indigent
and was appointed counsel. The attorney fees were included in the
judgment placing him on probation, and were collected. Because there
was never any allegation that Mr. Ardry failed to pay any required fees or
costs, Smith County collected $300 from Mr. Ardry to which legally it was
not entitled.
4
ARGUMENT
ISSUE TWO, RESTATED: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING
ATTORNEY FEES FOLLOWING A FINDING THAT MR. ARDRY WAS
INDIGENT AND WAS APPOINTED COUNSEL.
A. Law on Attorney’s Fees
A trial court has the authority to assess attorney’s fees against a
criminal defendant who received court-appointed counsel. TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.05(g)(West 2010). Once a defendant has been
determined to be indigent, he is presumed to remain indigent for the
remainder of the proceedings unless a material change in his financial
circumstances occurs. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.04(p) (West
2010). Before attorney’s fees may be imposed, the trial court must make
a determination supported by some factual basis in the record that the
defendant has financial resources to enable him to offset in whole or in
part the costs of the legal services provided. Johnson v. State, 405 S.W.3d
350, 354 (Tex. App. – Tyler 2013, no pet). If the record does not show any
material change in the defendant’s financial circumstances, the evidence
will be insufficient to support the imposition of attorney’s fees. TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.04(p); Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552, 553, 557
5
(Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
Court costs are pre-determined, legislatively-mandated obligations
resulting from a conviction. See, e.g., TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§
102.001-.142 (West 2010) (setting forth various court costs that a
convicted person "shall" pay). A sentencing court shall impose the
statutory court costs at the time a defendant is sentenced. Armstrong v.
State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.
§102.021 (West 2010). Court costs are not punitive in nature and do not
have to be included in an oral pronouncement of a sentence. Weir v.
State, 278 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
A cost is not payable by the person charged with the cost until a
written bill is produced or is ready to be produced, containing the items
of cost, signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is
entitled to receive payment of the cost. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.
103.001 (West 2010). The clerk of the trial court is required to keep a fee
record, and a statement of an item therein is prima facie evidence of the
correctness of the statement. Owen v. State, 352 S.W.3d 542, 548 (Tex.
App.—Amarillo 2011, no pet.) (citing TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.
103.009(a), (c)). Until a certified bill of costs has been made part of the
6
record, a defendant has no obligation to pay court costs. Owen, 352
S.W.3d at 547 (citing Armstrong, 340 S.W.3d at 765; Williams v. State,
332 S.W.3d 694, 699 (Tex. App. – Amarillo 2011, pet. denied). In this case,
the only bill of costs ever prepared to support any amount of court costs
was prepared on June 27, 2014, almost three years after the attorney fee
was assessed. I CR 75, 16.
If a criminal action is appealed, "an officer of the court shall certify
and sign a bill of costs stating the costs that have accrued and send the
bill of costs to the court to which the action or proceeding is transferred or
appealed." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 103.006 (West 2010).
B. Standard of Review
The imposition of court costs upon a criminal defendant is a
“nonpunitive recoupment of the costs of judicial resources expended in
connection with the trial of the case.” Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385,
390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). When the imposition of court costs is
challenged on appeal, the court reviews the assessment of costs to
determine if there is a basis for the cost, not to determine if there is
7
sufficient evidence offered at trial to prove each cost. Johnson, 423 S.W.3d
at 390.
The standard for reviewing a legal sufficiency challenge is whether
any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. at
315-16, 99 S. Ct. at 2786-787; see also Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552,
557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)(sufficiency review of evidence to support order
of repayment of attorney fees as costs).
A challenge to a withdrawal of funds notification is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion. Williams, 332 S.W.3d at 698. A trial court abuses
its discretion when it acts “without reference to any guiding rules and
principles. Howell v. State, 175 S.W.3d 786, 792 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005);
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 380 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The
reviewing court may modify a withdrawal order on direct appeal if the
evidence is insufficient to support the assessment of court costs. Johnson
v. State, 405 S.W.3d at 355.
8
C. Application to These Facts
Mr. Ardry has been represented at all by appointed counsel. The
record contains four different orders appointing counsel. I CR 62, II CR
17, 47, and 62. Each pauper’s oath application contains a finding that Mr.
Ardry was indigent. II CR 18-19, 48-49, and 63-64. Finally, appellate
counsel was appointed for this appeal. I CR 62. A motion was filed with
the trial court seeking a free reporter’s record on appeal. I CR 70-72. This
motion was granted by the trial court without opposition from the State
of Texas. I CR 73.
The September 13, 2011 judgment and order placing Mr. Ardry on
probation included an assessment of $669.00 in court costs. I CR 16-17.
This amount exactly exceeds the bill of costs prepared in 2014 by $300.00.
I CR 75. The final judgment signed May 30, 2014 reflects a zero balance
for court costs, as doers the bill of costs. I CR 54 and 75.
Each item listed on the bill of costs appear to be properly assessed
costs. I CR 75. The properly assessed costs equal $369.00 in court costs.
However, Smith County collected $669. As this Court is aware from
dozens of other cases, some district courts have routinely assessed a $300
9
fee for costs of an attorney appointed after a finding that a defendant is
indigent.
There is no evidence to contest the finding that Mr. Ardry was found
indigent. Assessment of attorney’s fees following a finding of indigence is
improper. While the final judgment does not include the attorney’s fee,
judgment placing him on community supervision does, and there was no
allegation that Mr. Ardry ever failed to make required financial payments.
Why the bill of costs does not contain the fee which was assessed three
years previously is not known, but it is certainly reasonable to conclude
that this particular trial court has learned from the number of cases
modified on this issue not to assess the $300 fee for attorney costs.
Counsel is aware that the Court of Criminal Appeals issued an
opinion on February 4, 2015 and it is expected that the State may agree
that the attorney fee charge was assessed improperly, but that the time
to appeal that decision was in 2011. Riles v. State, No. PD-1757-13, 2015
Tex. App. LEXIS 135 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb 4, 2015). However, the key
difference between Mr. Ardry’s situation and Riles is that the bill of costs
was not prepared until three years after he was placed under supervision
10
and had been paid prior to 2013.3
D. Remedy and Relief Requested
The fee seeking reimbursement for the appointed attorney was
improperly assessed by the court. The original judgment should be
modified to reflect the true amount of court costs as assessed in the bill of
costs and the $300 should be ordered to be returned to Mr. Ardry.
3
There were no financial allegation related to court costs included in the first application
to proceed to final adjudication filed April 29, 2013. I CR 40-42.
11
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Counsel respectfully
prays that this Court modify the judgment of the trial court and order
Smith County to reimburse Mr. Ardry the improperly assessed $300.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ James Huggler
James W. Huggler, Jr.
State Bar Number 00795437
100 E. Ferguson, Suite 805
Tyler, Texas 75702
903-593-2400
903-593-3830 fax
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A true and correct copy of the foregoing Brief of the Appellant has been
forwarded to counsel for the State by electronic filing on this the 18th day
of February, 2015.
/s/ James Huggler
James W. Huggler, Jr.
Attorney for the State:
Mr. Michael West
Smith County Criminal District Attorney’s Office
100 N. Broadway, 4th Floor
Tyler, Texas 75702
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this Brief complies with Tex. R. App. P. 9.4, specifically
using 14 point Century font and contains 2,550 words as counted by
Corel WordPerfect version x5.
/s/ James Huggler
James Huggler
13