Ananda Chermion Habib v. State, 431 S.W.3d 737

Appellant pled guilty (2011) to stalking and violation of a protective order and received eight years’ deferred adjudication and $500 fines in each case.
The State moved to adjudicate after alleged supervision violations; the motions were amended to allege 30 violations.
At the March 25, 2013 adjudication hearing the State waived 15 violations; appellant pled true to 9 and not true to 6; appellant testified and admitted many violations but offered explanations.
After appellant’s counsel said “rest and close, and then give argument,” the court adjudicated guilt, sentenced appellant to ten years and a $5,000 fine in each case (to run concurrently), and signed bills of costs that included fines, sheriff’s extradition fees, and $3,222.24 in attorney’s fees (partly clerical).
Appellant appealed raising: denial of closing argument / ineffective assistance, constructive deprivation of counsel, cumulation of fines despite concurrent sentences, insufficiency of evidence for attorney’s fees, and insufficiency of evidence for sheriff’s extradition fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of closing argument	Appellant: counsel requested closing but was not allowed; reversible error and ineffective assistance	State: request was equivocal and abandoned; error not preserved	Error not preserved; appellant failed to object or file motion for new trial, so claim is overruled
Constructive deprivation of counsel	Appellant: counsel wanted to argue and not securing/ preserving argument deprived him at critical stage	State: counsel had plausible strategic reasons to waive argument	No constructive deprivation; plausible trial strategy exists, so counsel was not ineffective
Cumulated fines despite concurrent sentences	Appellant: bills of costs show $5,000 fine in each case, effectively cumulating fine	State: concedes error	Court deleted $5,000 fine from the second judgment to reflect concurrent sentences
Attorney’s & sheriff’s fees sufficiency	Appellant: record lacks proof he could pay attorney’s fees; challenges reasonableness/necessity of extradition fees	State: conceded attorney’s fees lack support; argued sheriff’s fees are supported	Modified judgments: deleted $3,222.24 attorney fee; deleted duplicate $445 sheriff fee; adjusted sheriff fees to $581.63 (basis in record).

Ruedas v. State, 586 S.W.2d 520 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (denial of counsel’s closing argument is abuse of discretion)
Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853 (U.S. 1975) (defendant’s right to closing argument under the Constitution)
Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (denial of counsel at a critical stage gives presumption of prejudice)
Ex parte Burns, 601 S.W.2d 370 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (courts defer to plausible trial strategy)
Rylander v. State, 101 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (presumption of effective assistance where record is silent on strategy)
Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (attorney-fee assessment requires proof of defendant’s ability to pay)
Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (oral pronouncement controls over conflicting written judgment)
State v. Crook, 248 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (concurrent sentences should not produce cumulated fines)