Paul David Wolfe v. State
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 5368
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Wolfe pled guilty on Sept. 11, 2007 and was placed on five years deferredd adjudication for aggravated assault.
- Court awarded his attorney fees: an initial $400 under deferredd adjudication.
- Two months later, the State moved to proceed and the court added a substance abuse program requirement, plus a second $400 attorney fee.
- On Apr. 27, 2010, after a plea of true, the court adjudicated guilt and sentenced Wolfe to ten years; the same day an additional $825 attorney fee was awarded.
- May 5, 2010 judgment ordered Wolfe to pay court costs and fines; the attached Bill of Costs (May 10, 2010) listed attorney fees $1,625 and sheriff fees $196.74.
- Wolfe challenged the attorney’s fees and sheriff fees in four issues; the court modified judgment and affirmed as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court-appointed attorney’s fees could be taxed without ability-to-pay findings. | Wolfe argued no evidence of ability to pay supported the fees. | State contended timely appeal issues barred review of earlier fees but agreed later portions should be deleted for lack of ability-to-pay. | Fees improperly assessed; judgment modified to delete $1,625 in attorney’s fees. |
| Whether the sheriff’s fees were properly supported by the record. | Wolfe challenged $196.74 total sheriff fees. | State argued statutory sheriff-fee requirements were met. | Sheriff’s fees supported; overruled challenge. |
| Whether the 2007 and 2008 attorney-fee assessments were reviewable on direct appeal after revocation. | Wolfe claimed lack of jurisdiction to review earlier fees. | State urged jurisdictional limits and distinguished Olivo. | Appellate jurisdiction sustained for reviewing post-judgment attorney-fee amounts; 2007 fees deleted due to lack of evidence of ability to pay. |
| Whether the 2007 fee amounts were properly reviewed given contract-like conditions of community supervision. | Wolfe asserted Speth/Reyes limitations on reviewing prior probation-terms obligations. | State argued waiver and contract-like nature bar challenges; Speth governs only terms, not post-revocation amounts. | Majority rejects broad Speth-bar; finds lack of evidence of ability-to-pay at time of 2007 order; disagrees with complete waiver and remands to adjust judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (ability to pay must be considered at time of assessment; remand in related cases)
- Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (defendant’s financial resources and ability to pay are critical to costs/fees decision)
- Speth v. State, 6 S.W.3d 530 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (probation terms often reviewed at trial; waiver if not objected to at time imposed)
- Reyes v. State, 324 S.W.3d 865 (Tex.App.-Amarillo2010) (waiver/ability-to-pay issues in deferred-adjudication costs; role of direct appeal constraints)
- Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (untimely appeals lack jurisdiction)