Ashley Marie Fowler v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )


Menu:
  •              In the
    Court of Appeals
    Second Appellate District of Texas
    at Fort Worth
    ___________________________
    No. 02-23-00159-CR
    ___________________________
    ASHLEY MARIE FOWLER, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS
    On Appeal from the 355th District Court
    Hood County, Texas
    Trial Court No. CR15048
    Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.
    Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Appellant Ashley Marie Fowler appeals from an adjudication of her guilt. Her
    sole complaint is that the trial court should not have imposed court-appointed
    attorney’s fees as costs. We affirm.
    Background
    Fowler was indicted in 2021 for possession of methamphetamine (between
    four and two hundred grams) and tampering with evidence. In exchange for the State
    dropping the tampering charge, Fowler pleaded guilty to possession of
    methamphetamine. Fowler was placed on deferred adjudication probation for seven
    years and was fined $1,500. The order deferring guilt also contained an order requiring
    Fowler to pay “Court Appointed Attorney Fees” in the amount of $725. This
    payment requirement was also included among the list of her probation conditions.
    Fowler signed this document (combined deferred adjudication order and probation
    conditions) and waived her appellate rights. Finally, the trial court certified that not
    only had Fowler waived the right to appeal but that she had no right to appeal
    because her guilty plea was the result of a plea bargain.
    2
    The State filed a motion to adjudicate in 2023. The trial court adjudicated
    Fowler guilty and sentenced her to fifteen years in prison. The judgment indicated
    that Fowler owed a total of $1,075.1
    Analysis
    Fowler claims that, because she was originally found to be indigent and there
    was never any change in that status, the trial court was barred from collecting
    reimbursement for her appointed attorney’s fees.
    The State responds that Fowler has forfeited her claim that she was unlawfully
    imposed attorney’s fees because she failed to object to them when they were imposed
    as a condition of probation. We agree that Fowler has forfeited her claim, but for a
    slightly different reason: Fowler bargained for deferred adjudication, was aware of the
    reparation amount, and waived her right to appeal.
    Normally, a sufficiency challenge to the imposition of attorney’s fees need not
    be preserved at trial. Mayer v. State, 
    309 S.W.3d 552
    , 556 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
    However, where a defendant plea bargains for deferred adjudication probation,
    knowingly and voluntarily waives her right to appeal, and signs a judgment that
    includes a special finding requiring her to pay attorney’s fees, she forfeits any
    subsequent claim that the trial court’s order to repay attorney’s fees was improper. See
    1
    According to the District Clerk’s bill of costs, Fowler owed $350 in court costs
    in addition to a required repayment for attorney’s fees. The trial court deleted the
    $1,500 fine that it had previously imposed.
    3
    Lewis v. State, 
    423 S.W.3d 451
    , 458 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013, pet. ref’d); see also
    Wiley v. State, 
    410 S.W.3d 313
    , 315–16 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (holding defendant
    forfeits his improper-fees claim where he waived his right to appeal and pleaded guilty
    knowing the amount of fees and knowing he would be required to pay them).
    In Fowler’s case, the evidence shows that she signed a document indicating that
    she had no right to appeal and that she affirmatively waived any right to appeal. In
    addition, Fowler signed what appears to be one continuous document containing
    both the order of deferred adjudication and a list of the conditions of her probation.
    Both the order and the conditions made clear that Fowler owed $725 in attorney’s
    fees. Accordingly, because the record reflects that Fowler knew she would be required
    to repay $725—but still waived her right to appeal—she has forfeited any claim that
    the imposition of $725 as attorney’s fees was improper. See Lewis, 
    423 S.W.3d at
    458–
    59.
    Having overruled Fowler’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
    /s/ Mike Wallach
    Mike Wallach
    Justice
    Do Not Publish
    Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
    Delivered: February 29, 2024
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-23-00159-CR

Filed Date: 2/29/2024

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/4/2024