Daniel, Ex Parte Jefferie Anteries
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 688
Tex. Crim. App.2013Background
- Bill of Cost issued nine years after judgment, seeking reimbursement of attorney fees.
- Judgment in 2002 convicted applicant of forgery; sentence 20 years; costs of $295.25 imposed; no explicit 'APPOINTED ATTY' cost in judgment.
- 2011 bill added $7,945.00 for 'APPOINTED ATTY'; applicant challenged via a post-conviction habeas corpus under Art. 11.07.
- Applicant claimed indigence and no change in finances; relied on Art. 26.05(g) and Mayer to strike the bill.
- Trial court suggested dismissal; remanded for fact development; court later found indigent status and appointed appellate counsel, but found no prior ability-to-pay findings.
- Court treated petition as mandamus to delete $7,945 from the bill, leaving $295.25; mandamus relief conditioned on clerk deleting the excessive amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can the bill of cost be challenged under Article 11.07? | Daniel argues 11.07 is proper. | State contends not cognizable under 11.07; misfit with confinement. | Bill not reviewable under 11.07; treated as mandamus. |
| May the district clerk validly assess attorney fees via a belated bill under Article 26.05(g)? | Fees should be based on court findings of indigence and ability to pay. | Clerk may assess costs under 26.05(g) with proper court findings. | No valid authority absent trial-court findings; improper nine-year assessment. |
| Is mandamus the proper remedy to challenge the bill? | Request should be via post-conviction remedies or direct challenge. | Relief is not via 11.07; but mandamus is appropriate to address clerical/administrative illegality. | Yes; mandamus proper and relief conditionally granted to delete $7,945. |
| Does the petitioner have a clear entitlement to mandamus relief without adequate legal remedy? | No adequate legal remedy due to lack of appellate or 11.07 review. | Remedy limited; but lack of prior findings undermines authority to bill. | Petitioner demonstrates no adequate remedy and entitlement to relief conditional on clerk’s compliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (financial resources essential for determining costs under 26.05(g))
- Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (attorney fees valid whether or not in judgment; requires trial court findings)
- Curry v. Wilson, 853 S.W.2d 40 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (continuing authority to recover costs; time limits discussed)
- Ex parte Lockett, 956 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (11.07 relief not available for double jeopardy; limits of habeas scope)
- Johnson v. Tenth Judicial District Court of Appeals, 280 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (statutory right to appeal; related limitations on appeal from costs)
- Bowen v. Carnes, 343 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (resources and ability to pay as critical elements in costs decisions)
- Ex parte Baker, 185 S.W.3d 894 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (11.07 relief not available for certain post-conviction challenges; counsel considerations)