Fatima Rahman v. State, 12-14-00225-CR

Appellant Fatima Rahman pleaded guilty to felony DWI, received a 10-year sentence suspended for 7 years of community supervision, and was ordered to pay court costs.
The State later filed an application to revoke community supervision; the application was signed by the supervision officer but not the prosecutor and was filed July 8, 2014.
At a July 23, 2014 hearing the trial court revoked supervision and sentenced Rahman to 5 years' confinement.
The post-revocation judgment and the clerk’s itemized bill of costs did not list appointed attorney fees as assessed after revocation; any appointed-attorney fees would have arisen at the time community supervision was originally imposed.
On appeal from the revocation, Rahman raised three issues: (1) that appointed-attorney fees were improperly imposed as court costs, and (2–3) that the unsigned prosecutor signature on the revocation application rendered the revocation improper.
The State argues Rahman forfeited review of all three complaints by failing to timely object: the fees issue should have been raised on direct appeal from the original community-supervision order, and the defect in the application to revoke was not preserved by a timely motion to quash, objection, or motion for new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appointed-attorney fees were improperly imposed as court costs	Rahman: trial court/clerks erred by including appointed-attorney fees in court costs	State: any such error was forfeited because Rahman did not raise it on direct appeal from the original placement on community supervision	Forfeited — issue waived for failure to raise on original appeal; overruled
Whether revocation based on an application lacking the prosecutor's signature was invalid (preservation)	Rahman: unsigned application to revoke rendered revocation improper	State: the defect was not raised via a timely motion to quash, objection, or motion for new trial and thus is forfeited	Forfeited — not preserved; overruled
Whether unsigned prosecutor signature on the application is a jurisdictional defect allowing review at any time	Rahman: not preserved but may implicate jurisdiction	State: motions to revoke do not invoke court jurisdiction like indictments; nonjurisdictional defects must be timely raised	Held nonjurisdictional and forfeited if not timely raised

Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (issues relating to conviction must be raised when community supervision is originally imposed)
Wiley v. State, 410 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (failure to preserve error by timely appeal forfeits complaint)
Flournoy v. State, 589 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (standard of review for probation revocation is abuse of discretion)
Labelle v. State, 720 S.W.2d 101 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (motions to revoke probation do not invoke court jurisdiction like indictments)
Peoples v. State, 566 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (motion to revoke need only give fair notice of allegations so defendant can prepare a defense)
Fuller v. State, 253 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (constitutional guarantees and other errors can be forfeited by failure to object)