Matthew Diaz v. State
03-15-00539-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 20, 2015Background
- Matthew Diaz pled guilty to aggravated robbery with a firearm and received ten years deferred adjudication and a $1,500 fine.
- The State later filed a motion to adjudicate alleging 19 violations (A–S), including new criminal conduct, drug violations, supervision failures, and multiple failure-to-pay allegations.
- At the adjudication hearing Diaz pleaded "true" to all 19 paragraphs and submitted a written judicial confession admitting the deadly-weapon allegation.
- The trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated guilt, sentenced Diaz to five years’ imprisonment, and ordered payment of court costs totaling $577 per the clerk’s bill of costs.
- Diaz appealed, raising three issues: (1) whether the court erred by not holding an ability-to-pay hearing for the payment-related allegations, (2) whether the written judgment improperly includes an affirmative deadly-weapon finding, and (3) whether assessed court costs were improper or duplicative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Diaz) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held (State's position) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Revocation without ability-to-pay hearing | Court should have held an ability-to-pay hearing before revoking based on unpaid costs/fees | Diaz pled true to nine non-payment violations; one proven violation suffices for revocation, so ability-to-pay not dispositive | No reversible error: plea of true to other violations supports revocation without probing ability to pay |
| 2. Deadly-weapon finding in written judgment | Oral pronouncement did not expressly state a deadly-weapon finding, so written finding is improper | Indictment, plea, judicial confession, and prior deferred-adjudication order all establish the deadly-weapon finding; oral repetition not required | Written deadly-weapon finding proper where weapon allegation is in charging instrument and defendant admitted it |
| 3. Assessment and possible duplication of court costs | Some fees lack statutory basis or are duplicative of earlier bill (double-charged) | All listed fees are statutorily authorized (including sheriff fee and $5 e-filing fee); the bill shows unpaid balances and new costs accrued; clerk’s payment records control credits | Court may properly order costs per official bill; defendant may obtain credit for any prior payments from clerk records |
Key Cases Cited
- Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (revocation stands if at least one alleged violation is proven)
- Gipson v. State, 428 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (distinguishes fines from other costs for ability-to-pay revocation rules)
- Ex parte Huskins, 176 S.W.3d 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (bench trial: deadly-weapon finding need not be orally announced if clearly alleged and proven)
- Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (a plea of true alone can support revocation)
- Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard of review for revocation is abuse of discretion)
- Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (single violation suffices for revocation)
- Jones v. State, 589 S.W.2d 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (evidence supporting revocation viewed in light most favorable to ruling)
- Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (when appellate review of court costs, the question is statutory basis, not trialproof of each item)