Joshua Lee Carr v. State
06-16-00111-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 27, 2016Background
- Defendant Joshua Lee Carr pled guilty to burglary of a habitation and was convicted; punishment was decided in a bench trial.
- The offense is a second-degree felony under the Penal Code, but an enhancement allegation increased the punishment range.
- Carr pled true to the State’s single enhancement allegation at punishment.
- The trial court sentenced Carr to 45 years’ imprisonment and ordered court costs totaling $1,756, which included $1,350 assessed as fees for court-appointed counsel.
- Carr was declared indigent; no finding exists that he has financial resources to reimburse appointed counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judgment incorrectly lists degree of offense | Carr: judgment lists first-degree but actual offense is second-degree burglary of a habitation | State: concedes error; enhancement affects punishment range but not offense degree | Modified judgment: offense degree corrected to second-degree |
| Whether trial court erred in assessing appointed attorney fees against an indigent defendant | Carr: fee assessment improper because he was indigent and no finding of ability to pay | State: concedes assessment was erroneous | Modified judgment: $1,350 attorney-fee assessment deleted |
| Whether judgment incorrectly indicates multiple enhancement pleas | Carr: asserts judgment shows pleas to more than one enhancement | State: argues only one enhancement plea was shown | Held: claim meritless; judgment reflects plea true to a single enhancement and no second enhancement alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Juarez v. State, 461 S.W.3d 283 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015) (appellate authority to modify judgments to make the record speak the truth)
- Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (judgment modification authority)
- French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (judgment correction principles)
- Rhoten v. State, 299 S.W.3d 349 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009) (judgment modification authority)
- Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (financial-ability requirement for assessing appointed counsel fees)
- Cates v. State, 402 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (assessing appointed-attorney fees against indigent defendant improper without finding of ability to pay)
- Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (same)
- Martin v. State, 405 S.W.3d 944 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013) (same)