London, Joshua, PD-0480-15

Appellant Joshua London pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine (1–4 g) without an agreed punishment recommendation; trial court sentenced him to 25 years.
A cost bill assessing $329 in court costs (including a $35 “Summoning Witness/Mileage” item) was prepared 19 days after the judgment; there is no record the cost bill was sent to London or his counsel.
London filed a pro se notice of appeal and an unsigned motion to withdraw his guilty plea; trial counsel appeared at an abatement hearing and the trial court later certified the right to appeal.
On appeal London raised (1) ineffective-assistance/representation during the 30-day motion-for-new-trial period and (2) an as-applied constitutional challenge to the statutory sheriff’s witness fee as to an indigent defendant.
The First Court of Appeals affirmed: it rejected a rebuttal of the presumption of adequate representation and held the as-applied constitutional challenge to article 102.011(a)(3) was waived because it wasn’t raised in the trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether London rebutted presumption of adequate representation during the 30‑day motion-for-new-trial period	London: pro se notice/motion to withdraw and counsel’s fee voucher show he lacked counsel and could have raised claims in a motion for new trial	State: pro se filings alone don’t rebut presumption; record shows trial counsel remained involved and sought appointment of appellate counsel	Court: London failed to rebut presumption; no facially plausible claim shown; representation presumed and issue overruled
Whether London may raise an as-applied constitutional challenge to the $35 sheriff’s witness fee for the first time on appeal	London: cost bill was created post-judgment and he had no notice or opportunity to object, so he may raise the challenge on appeal	State: an as-applied constitutional challenge must be preserved by raising it in the trial court (Curry)	Court: claim waived—defendant did not raise the as-applied constitutional challenge at trial; issue forfeited on appeal

Landers v. State, 402 S.W.3d 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (post-judgment cost bill not provided in open court may permit raising cost challenge on appeal)
Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (a defendant may challenge factual bases for assessed statutory court costs for first time on appeal)
Cardenas v. State, 423 S.W.3d 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (convicted defendants have constructive notice of mandatory statutory court costs and may challenge assessment on appeal or via art. 103.008)
Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (as-applied constitutional challenges generally must be preserved by objection at trial)