Aaron Antwon Branch v. State
10-16-00383-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 2, 2017Background
- Aaron Antwon Branch pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance and received deferred adjudication community supervision for five years under a plea agreement; he waived appeal rights at that time.
- The deferred-adjudication order required payment of a fine, restitution, court costs, and court-appointed attorney’s fees; those amounts were listed in the order and associated bill of costs signed the same day.
- About a year later the State moved to adjudicate; Branch pled true, the trial court adjudicated guilt, and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment.
- On appeal Branch challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence supporting the attorney’s fees order, (2) assessment of a $6.00 jury reimbursement fee (asserting statutory limit is $4.00), and (3) inclusion of plea-bargain terms in the judgment where no plea bargain existed.
- The State conceded the plea-bargain wording was erroneous; the parties agreed the judgment should be reformed to delete the plea-bargain terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for court-appointed attorney’s fees | Branch: record lacks proof supporting the amount of fees and thus insufficient evidence for fees ordered | State: fees were imposed at deferred-adjudication stage; Branch had notice and did not appeal then | Overruled — complaint procedurally defaulted because fees were imposed on deferred adjudication and Branch failed to appeal that order (Riles) |
| Jury reimbursement fee amount ($6.00 vs $4.00 statutory) | Branch: fee exceeds statutorily authorized $4.00 and is unauthorized | State: fee was assessed in the original deferred-adjudication order and was not altered at adjudication | Overruled — cannot raise on appeal from revocation any challenge that could have been raised on direct appeal from original imposition; fee stands as previously assessed |
| Erroneous inclusion of plea-bargain terms in judgment | Branch: judgment incorrectly lists terms of a plea bargain that did not exist | State: agrees the inclusion is a clerical/clerical-type error and should be reformed | Overruled but judgment reformed to delete plea-bargain terms; appellate court has authority to correct clerical error |
Key Cases Cited
- Riles v. State, 452 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (issues regarding fees imposed on deferred adjudication are forfeited if not appealed at that time)
- Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (only statutorily authorized costs may be assessed against a criminal defendant)
- Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (cannot raise on appeal from revocation claims that could have been raised on direct appeal from original community supervision order)
- Wiley v. State, 410 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (complaints about costs imposed with community supervision are subject to the same preservation rules)
- Banks v. State, 708 S.W.2d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (appellate courts have authority to reform judgments when the record supplies necessary data)
- Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd) (same authority to reform judgment)