Denetrius Miller Johnson v. State, 405 S.W.3d 350

Appellant Denetrius Miller Johnson was convicted of theft by check in Smith County after a guilty plea on August 16, 2012; punishment was set at 15 months’ confinement.
The trial court initially pronounced no fines but ordered payment of court costs; restitution was ordered as already determined due.
At judgment, the trial court listed $580.00 in court costs but no certified bill of costs accompanied the record at that time.
Upon appeal, the State obtained permission to supplement the appellate record, and a certified bill of costs was later added to the record.
The record shows two indigence determinations: one for trial court representation and another for appellate representation, but no explicit evidence showing Appellant’s current ability to pay attorney’s fees.
The Court modified the judgment to reflect $280.00 in court costs and deleted $300.00 in attorney’s fees, with the total costs and restitution adjusted to $10,661.64; the judgment, as modified, was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether costs are properly supported by the bill of costs.	Johnson argues costs are unsupported by the record.	The State contends the supplemented bill of costs validly supports the costs.	Yes; the record, supplemented, supports $280.00 in court costs.
Whether attorney’s fees can be imposed as costs where indigence persists.	Johnson maintains lack of evidence of ability to pay precludes attaching attorney’s fees.	State argues fees may be imposed regardless of indigence under statutes.	No; insufficient evidence of financial resources to pay attorney’s fees; modify to delete attorney’s fees.
Whether appointment of costs after indigence determinations complied with law.	Not explicitly stated as to post-plea indigence changes.	Costs may be assessed regardless of indigence under governing statutes.	Record shows no material change in financial circumstances to justify attorney’s fees; affirmed modification.

Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (remand for attorney’s fees not required when record shows no change in resources; supplementation allowed for costs)
Wolfe v. State, 377 S.W.3d 141 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2012) (indigence status can support—or limit—costs and fees depending on record evidence)
Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (court costs authorized by statute; indigence considerations apply to attorney’s fees)