Aaron Dathan Davis v. State ( 2014 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-13-00346-CR
________________________
AARON DATHAN DAVIS AKA AARON NATHAN DAVIS, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 181st District Court
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 65,984-B; Honorable John Board, Presiding
June 23, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Following a plea of not guilty, Appellant, Aaron Dathan Davis aka Aaron Nathan
Davis, was convicted by a jury of assault against a public servant, enhanced, and
sentenced to eight years confinement.1 By two issues, Appellant challenges the
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ' 22.01(b)(1) (West Supp. 2013). Although the offense is a third
degree felony, the range of punishment for the offense was enhanced to that of a second degree felony
because Appellant had been previously convicted of a felony other than a state jail felony. Id. ' 12.42(a)
(West Supp. 2013).
sufficiency of the evidence to sustain court-appointed attorney’s fees in the sum of
$4,436.00 and investigator’s fees in the sum of $1,056.25. The State agrees with
Appellant’s contentions and concedes the judgment should be modified to delete both
sums.
It is well established that in order to assess the “cost of legal services provided,
including any expenses and costs,” a trial court must determine that the defendant has
financial resources that enable him to offset in part or in whole those costs. See TEX.
CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.05(g) (West Supp. 2013); Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d
552, 555-56 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Additionally, article 26.05(h) of the Code provides
for reimbursement of expenses incurred for a private investigator appointed and
approved by the trial court. See art. 26.05(h). In Martin v. State, 405 S.W.3d 944, 948
(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, no pet.), the court determined that the cost of a court-
appointed investigator is a cost of provision of a defendant’s constitutionally mandated
defense. In the absence of a legislative mandate, that cost may not be assessed
against a defendant without a finding by the trial court of ability to pay. Id.
Here, Appellant argues, and the State agrees, there is no factual basis in the
record to support an assessment against Appellant of $4,436.00 for attorney’s fees or
$1,056.25 for investigator fees.2 We sustain Appellant’s two issues.
__________________________
2
Although the Bill of Cost reflects “Attorney Fee(s) – Original Plea Agreement,” the State notes
Appellant entered a not guilty plea so there was no “Original Plea Agreement.”
2
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment to delete any obligation to pay
the “Investigator Fees” of $1,056.25 and “Attorney Fee(s)” of $4,436.00, and we order
the preparation of an amended Bill of Cost. As modified, the trial court’s judgment is
affirmed.
Patrick A. Pirtle
Justice
Do not publish.
3