Fredzrina Leenette Harvey v. State

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-18-00117-CR
FREDZRINA LEENETTE HARVEY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 188th District Court
Gregg County, Texas
Trial Court No. 47,478-A
Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Fredzrina Leenette Harvey pled guilty to credit card abuse, and the trial court sentenced
her to eighteen months’ confinement in state jail.
In her sole issue on appeal, Harvey claims that because she was indigent, the trial court
erred in assessing attorney fees against her. 1 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:
(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. 2018). “[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 Harvey was found to be indigent by the trial court. The record
does not contain any determination or finding by the trial court that Harvey had any financial
resources or was able to pay the appointed attorney fees. Thus, the assessment of the $391.00 in
attorney fees for counsel appointed to represent Harvey during the revocation proceedings was
1
The State concedes the error.
2
erroneous 2 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.).
We sustain Harvey’s sole point of error and modify the judgment by deleting the
assessment of $391.00 in attorney fees from the judgment. As modified, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Date Submitted: November 26, 2018
Date Decided: November 27, 2018
Do Not Publish
2
The trial court also appointed Harvey counsel on appeal.
3