Michael Kenneth Lawrence v. State
420 S.W.3d 329
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Michael Kenneth Lawrence pled guilty to injury to a child and received ten years’ deferred-adjudication community supervision pursuant to a plea bargain.
- Conditions required 160 hours of community-service restitution at no fewer than 10 hours per month “as directed by the court or supervision officer.”
- The State filed a petition to proceed to adjudication claiming Lawrence failed to complete the total ordered hours (and failed to do at least 10 hours/month). Lawrence pled not true; the trial court found the allegation true and adjudicated guilt.
- At sentencing the trial court assessed a prison term (within the statutory range) and a judgment included $14,475 in appointed-attorney fees, reparations of $17,897 (which duplicated the $14,475), and $295 in court costs.
- On appeal Lawrence challenged (1) the propriety of adjudication, (2) excessiveness of sentence, (3) sufficiency of evidence for appointed-attorney fees, (4) duplicate inclusion of attorney fees in reparations, and (5) the court costs. The State conceded insufficiency as to attorney’s fees and duplication in reparations but defended adjudication, sentence, and most costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lawrence) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was adjudication proper (revocation for failing to complete community service)? | Lawrence: Evidence insufficient—no proof of total hours missed or that officer/court directed performance. | State: Conditions required 160 hours and at least 10 hours/month; SO testified Lawrence failed to complete total hours and failed to do 10/month. | Court: No abuse of discretion—testimony supported violation of conditions; adjudication affirmed. |
| 2. Is the sentence excessive for the alleged supervision violation? | Lawrence: Maximum confinement for a minor probation violation is excessive. | State: Sentence within statutory range and must be measured against original offense gravity. | Court: Sentence not grossly disproportionate; compare to original sexual-offense conduct—affirmed. |
| 3. Were appointed-attorney fees properly imposed in post‑adjudication judgment? | Lawrence: Insufficient evidence supports the $14,475 fee assessment. | State: Argues some costs were litigated earlier; otherwise conceded insufficiency of fee amount here. | Court: Sustained—evidence insufficient to support imposing $14,475 in appointed-attorney fees in the revocation judgment; remove fee requirement. |
| 4. Should duplicative attorney-fee amount in reparations be deleted? | Lawrence: Reparations improperly include same $14,475 fee. | State: Conceded duplication. | Court: Sustained—modify judgment to delete attorney-fee language and reduce reparations accordingly. |
| 5. Are the court costs in the judgment valid (including $25 time-payment fee)? | Lawrence: Bill of costs defective (unsigned typed name, unclear line items, no showing judge saw them). | State: Bill has district-clerk certification stamp; item descriptions correspond to statutory fees; $25 time-payment fee proper because original $270 unpaid. | Court: Overruled—bill and stamp sufficient, statutory mapping clear, $25 and other costs supported; preserved challenge limited to $25 (other $270 forfeited by plea waiver). |
Key Cases Cited
- Cantu v. State, 339 S.W.3d 688 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011) (revocation-of-supervision review framework)
- Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for revocation)
- Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (trial court as factfinder in revocation proceedings)
- Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (State must prove violation by preponderance)
- Kim v. State, 283 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009) (punishment within statutory range generally not excessive)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (Eighth Amendment proportionality analysis)
- Von Schounmacher v. State, 5 S.W.3d 221 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (post-deferred adjudication punishment within statutory range)
- Wiley v. State, 410 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (limits on challenging attorney-fee awards after plea-bargained deferred adjudication)
- Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (sufficiency challenges to attorney’s fees need not always be preserved)