Hill v. State
440 S.W.3d 670
Tex. App.2012Background
- Hill pled guilty to burglary of a habitation with intent to commit sexual assault; the trial court placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for ten years and ordered costs of $350.
- State moved to adjudicate; initial hearing was held in abeyance as to some paragraphs; State later filed motion to complete adjudication alleging additional offenses.
- Appellant was found incompetent to stand trial, committed for up to 120 days, then attained competency; after a hearing, the court adjudicated guilt and sentenced Hill to 20 years’ imprisonment with court costs and attorney’s fees of $960.
- The trial court did not include attorney’s fees in oral sentence; Hill timely appealed; issues addressed include attorney’s fees, new-trial motion, and judgment corrections.
- Court ultimately overruled issues 1 and 2, dismissed issue 3, and sustained issue 4, modifying the judgment to reflect only paragraphs II–IV true as to the State’s motion to adjudicate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney’s fees must be orally pronounced | Hill contends fees were invalid for lack of oral pronouncement | State asserts fees may be enforced as costs and need not be orally pronounced | Granted: fees may be enforced though not orally pronounced |
| Sufficiency of evidence re: ability to pay fees | Mayer-based failure to show ability to pay | Appellant had funds (SSDI) enabling payment | Denied: Court properly assessed fees based on financial resources |
| Motion for new trial after deferred adjudication | New-trial motion not properly considered after revocation | Rule prohibits new-trial issues post-revocation except void/habeas exceptions | Dismissed: no jurisdiction to hear new-trial claim under Manuel v. State |
| Abandoned count in motion to adjudicate | State abandoned paragraph I; judgment incorrectly labeled I–V true | State concedes issue; reform warranted | Sustained: modify judgment to reflect only paragraphs II–IV true |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (oral pronouncement controls when inconsistent with judgment)
- Ex parte Madding, 70 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (oral pronouncement controls for punishment terms)
- Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (court costs are nonpunitive and need not be orally pronounced)
- Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (restitution and costs are nonpunitive; not required in oral pronouncement)
- Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (void judgment standards; exceptions for deferred adjudication issues)