Eddie Ray Jackson v. State
12-16-00102-CR
| Tex. Crim. App. | Aug 17, 2016Background
- Eddie Ray Jackson pleaded guilty to forgery and received deferred-adjudication community supervision for three years.
- The trial court ordered $1,565.32 in restitution as a condition of community supervision.
- The State later sought adjudication; the court adjudicated guilt, sentenced Jackson (two years prison suspended for five), and again ordered $1,565.32 restitution.
- A subsequent revocation proceeding resulted in an eighteen-month prison sentence and an order to pay the remaining $1,270.32 restitution.
- Jackson appealed, raising two issues: (1) that attorney’s fees were improperly assessed against him, and (2) that restitution lacked sufficient evidentiary support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jackson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorney’s fees were improperly imposed | Fees valid because bill of costs supports assessed court costs; Jackson forfeited direct-appeal challenge | No factual basis shows Jackson had ability to pay; fees improper without showing material change in indigency | Court affirms: bill of costs supplies basis; Jackson forfeited challenge by not appealing original supervision order |
| Whether restitution lacks sufficient evidentiary support | Restitution was properly ordered and Jackson forfeited direct-appeal challenge to its amount | Insufficient evidence that restitution was directed to victims or supported by record | Court affirms: Jackson knew of restitution obligation (signed conditions, PSC review) and forfeited challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (standards for assessing court costs and use of bill of costs)
- Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (indigency presumption and no-evidence standard for ability to pay counsel fees)
- Wiley v. State, 410 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (forfeiture rule for challenges arising from community-supervision orders)
- Riles v. State, 452 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (awareness of obligation triggers requirement to raise challenge on direct appeal)
- Burt v. State, 445 S.W.3d 752 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (limits on restitution: criminal responsibility, directed to victim, factual basis)
- Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (forfeiture of sufficiency challenges arising from community-supervision orders)
- Cartwright v. State, 605 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (abuse-of-discretion standard for restitution review)