Mathis, John Kent
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 266
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Appellant, indigent, was charged with sexual assault and sentenced to ten years’ probation with an ISF term for alcohol issues and a SCRAM device to be worn after release.
- At sentencing, the trial judge ordered appellant to wear and pay for a SCRAM device for the first two years of probation, despite indigency evidence and objections.
- Appellant filed sworn affidavits of indigence; he remained jailed for 17 months until trial and continued to be indigent thereafter.
- Court costs, fines, attorney’s fees, and additional probation and supervision fees totaled over $23,000; several items were undetermined costs (Alcohol/Drug Assessment, SCRAM).
- The court of appeals deleted the SCRAM payment obligation, holding that the trial court must consider ability to pay but could not require payment at sentencing.
- The Texas Supreme Court remanded to give the trial court an opportunity to consider appellant’s financial ability to pay the SCRAM costs at this time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must trial court consider ability to pay before ordering SCRAM costs? | Mathis contends the court failed to consider indigence when ordering SCRAM payments. | State argues the court did consider indigency and could condition probation on payment over time. | Yes; court must consider ability to pay before imposing monetary obligations. |
| Is it error to require payment for SCRAM when indigent at sentencing? | Mathis asserts indigency prohibits payment as a condition of probation. | State contends current record shows consideration and future ability to pay; obligation could be upheld. | Remanded for proper consideration of current ability to pay; cannot simply delete the condition. |
| What is the proper remedy when lack of ‘consideration’ is shown? | Mathis favors preserving the SCRAM condition if pay can be demonstrated feasible later. | State prefers feasible modification or county-funded SCRAM if indigence persists. | Remand to allow trial court to assess current ability to pay and adjust accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Gonzales, 945 S.W.2d 830 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (trial court must consider ability to pay before ordering payment or imprisonment for costs)
- Pennington v. State, 902 S.W.2d 752 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1995) (court may order payments based on ability to pay and allow extensions)
- Chauncey v. State, 837 S.W.2d 184 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1992) (record may show consideration of ability to pay; contexts vary by case)
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (U.S. 1983) (probation revocation cannot be based on nonpayment without showing willful default and alternatives)
- Luquis v. State, 72 S.W.3d 355 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (use of 'shall' indicates mandatory duty; consideration doctrine discussed)
- Mathis v. State, 397 S.W.3d 332 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2013) (discusses indigency and payments related to court costs and attorney's fees)