Knight, Ex Parte Nancy Gail, 2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 940

Nancy Gail Knight was convicted by jury of possession of a controlled substance (1–4 g); jury found true: use/exhibition of a deadly weapon, commission in a drug-free zone, and prior felony enhancements; punishment assessed at 55 years.
Knight later pleaded guilty in a separate felon-in-possession case to 15 years; that sentence was ordered to run consecutively (cumulated) with the 55‑year sentence.
The indictment and judgment in the drug case included an affirmative drug‑free‑zone finding; the drug-free‑zone finding increased the statutory minimum punishment for a habitual offender from 25 to 30 years.
The bill of costs in the firearm case (dated one day after judgment) assessed $1,200 in appointed-attorney fees, although the record reflects Knight was found indigent when counsel was appointed and contains no finding she later had resources to repay fees.
Knight filed an Article 11.07 habeas application asserting (1) no evidence supports the mandatory cumulation order under the drug‑free‑zone statute and (2) no evidence supports assessment of attorney’s fees; the habeas court recommended relief on both grounds.
This Court denied relief on the cumulation claim (found some evidence supports mandatory cumulation) and dismissed the attorney‑fee claim as not cognizable on an Article 11.07 habeas corpus application.

Issue	Knight's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether there is no evidence that Knight’s drug sentence was increased due to an affirmative drug‑free‑zone finding triggering mandatory cumulation	Knight: no evidence shows the jury actually increased punishment because of the drug‑free‑zone finding	State: jury found drug‑free‑zone true; under Health & Safety §481.134(h) cumulation is mandatory when one offense triggers an increased punishment	Held: Denied — some evidence supports that punishment was increased (jury’s affirmative finding was in judgment and assessed sentence (55 yrs) was well above the 30‑yr minimum)
Whether there is no evidence to support imposition of $1,200 attorney’s fees in bill of costs	Knight: record lacks finding she was no longer indigent or able to pay; therefore no evidence supports reimbursement order	State: substantive authority unclear; also argues habeas is improper vehicle	Held: Dismissed — claim not cognizable in an Article 11.07 habeas; remedy (mandamus/direct appeal) should be sought in appropriate forum

Moore v. State, 371 S.W.3d 221 (Tex. Crim. App.) (distinguishing mandatory vs. discretionary cumulation under drug‑free‑zone statute)
Ex parte Perales, 215 S.W.3d 418 (Tex. Crim. App.) (no‑evidence claims cognizable on habeas; limited review standard)
In re Daniel, 396 S.W.3d 545 (Tex. Crim. App.) (habeas lacks jurisdiction over reimbursement orders; treated as mandamus in special posture)
Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App.) (challenges to repayment orders reviewable on direct appeal)
Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. Crim. App.) (mandamus against district‑court judge should be presented first to court of appeals)
Ex parte Townsend, 137 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. Crim. App.) (habeas not proper when adequate remedy by direct appeal exists)