Patrick Lee Wallace v. State, 06-16-00214-CR

Patrick Lee Wallace pled guilty to his third DWI; court suspended a 3-year sentence and placed him on 3 years’ community supervision with a $1,500 fine and $524 costs.
The State moved to revoke Wallace’s community supervision for multiple alleged violations; the trial court found violations and revoked supervision, sentencing him to 3 years’ imprisonment and ordering payment of the fine, costs, and $500 in appointed-attorney fees for the revocation proceedings.
Wallace was originally found indigent and had appointed counsel; a financial affidavit (two months before revocation) showed employment at $20/hour, net monthly pay $2,480, and monthly expenses $2,450.
At the revocation hearing, Wallace testified he could pay $1,200 immediately and could pay other amounts in a timely manner.
Wallace appealed, arguing (1) the trial court erred by ordering him to reimburse appointed counsel because he was indigent, and (2) the State failed to prove three of the alleged supervision violations; he did not challenge five other grounds the court found true.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred ordering payment of appointed-attorney fees from an indigent defendant	Wallace: indigent status precludes fee reimbursement	State/Trial court: court may order fees if defendant has financial resources to pay; Wallace testified he could pay $1,200 and timely pay other amounts	Trial court’s finding that Wallace had ability to pay $500 in attorney fees is supported by record; fee order affirmed
Whether revocation is unsupported because State failed to prove some alleged violations	Wallace: legal insufficiency as to three of eight alleged violations	State: five unchallenged grounds found true; a single sufficient ground supports revocation	Because appellant failed to challenge all grounds, unchallenged sufficient grounds support revocation; revocation affirmed

Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (defendant’s financial resources are critical to ordering reimbursement of appointed counsel fees)
Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (indigency presumptions and requirement to consider change in financial circumstances)
Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (single sufficient ground supports revocation of community supervision)
Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (failure to challenge all grounds found true leaves nothing for review)
Watkins v. State, 333 S.W.3d 771 (Tex. App.—Waco 2010) (discussing indigency and appointment of counsel in post-indigency contexts)