Austin Joel Trott v. State, 03-11-00721-CR

Appellant pleaded guilty to theft of a firearm, a state jail felony, with a sentence of three years’ deferred-adjudication community supervision.
Appellant was later arrested for public intoxication and burglary of a motor vehicle and fled to Mexico before the State moved to adjudicate.
After returning, appellant pled true to the motion to adjudicate and requested continued community supervision.
The trial court adjudicated appellant guilty and sentenced him to 18 months in state jail.
The court also assessed $787.50 in court-appointed attorney’s fees, despite a finding of indigence by the court on two occasions.
On appeal, Trott challenged the attorney’s-fees award and argued the sentence was an abuse of discretion; the State joined in defending the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Attorney’s fees were improperly awarded	Trott (State) asserts the record supports fees; no evidence of ability to pay	Trott contends indigence persisted; court should delete fees	Fees must be deleted; record does not support payment
Whether 18-month state-jail sentence was an abuse of discretion	Appellant argues sentence violates rehabilitation goal and is excessive	No objection raised, within statutory range, supported by record	Sentence not abused; within range and supported by record

Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (indigence persists unless material change in finances; support for fees based on record)
Dominguez v. State, 363 S.W.3d 926 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012) (modify judgment to delete attorney’s-fees when unsupported by record)
Edwards v. State, 21 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000) (focus on whether error requires specific objection)
Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (general principle: appellate review respects within-range sentences with record support)
Gilmore v. State, No. 03-10-00740-CR, 2011 WL 3659311 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011) (mem. op. not designated for publication; waiver principle referenced)