Riles, Tawona Sharmin
2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 135
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- Appellant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver; adjudication was deferred and she received community supervision.
- The order required payment of all court costs, including court-appointed attorney fees, with admonitions she could pay and to notify her probation officer of changes in finances.
- An attorney fee voucher for $1,000 was approved the day after the plea, and a district clerk bill of costs listed the $1,000 attorney fee.
- No further filings occurred until August 25, 2011 when the State moved to revoke supervision; in August 2012 a judgment adjudicating guilt imposed fines, costs, and restitution, referencing the attached bill of costs.
- The updated bill of costs on August 24, 2012 cited the $1,000 original attorney-fee and noted it would be paid as court costs.
- Court of Appeals held the claim forfeited for not raising it on direct appeal from the initial deferred adjudication order; this Court granted discretionary review to resolve applicability when amount/certainty were unknown at imposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether forfeiture applies when the exact attorney fee amount is unknown at initial imposed supervision | Riles argues Wiley applies only with knowledge of the amount. | State contends knowledge of the fee existed; issue should have been raised on initial appeal. | Forfeited; issue cannot be revived on later appeal. |
| Whether Manuel and Wiley foreclose raising an inability-to-pay challenge here | Appellant lacked knowledge of amount; no notice of independent obligation. | Appellant had notice of obligation via signed documents. | Appellant forfeited; lack of timely challenge under Manuel/Wiley. |
| Whether amount for revocation hearing attorney fees falls within the same ground of review | The $3,185 revocation-fee is not within the ground for review granted. | Argument should address all attorney-fee issues if related to the same transaction. | Not addressed; limited to the $1,000 fee originally imposed. |
| Whether appellant could obtain relief for late bill of costs via mandamus or other extraordinary relief | Late filing of bill of costs creates potential relief avenues. | No direct avenue to cure late cost bills in ordinary appeal. | Not needed to decide; grant review focused on forfeiture. |
| Whether the trial court properly considered ability to pay the $1,000 fee | Appellant claimed no evidence of ability to pay. | Appellant acknowledged ability to pay; bills attached later supported an implied consideration. | Even if considered on merits, claim would fail; appellant had notice and failed to appeal timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wiley v. State, 410 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (procedural default when issue could be raised on direct appeal from initial judgment)
- Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (issues related to the original plea proceeding must be raised on initial appeal)
- Landers v. State, 402 S.W.3d 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (mandamus relief where bill of costs issued after proceedings)
- Riles v. State, 417 S.W.3d 606 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2013) (forfeiture under Wiley/Manuel framework; dissent discusses scope)
- Ex parte Delaney, 207 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (waiver/appeal timing considerations for waivable issues)
- In re Daniel, 396 S.W.3d 545 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (mandamus contemplated where relief is clear and direct appeal is unavailable)
- Perez v. State, 424 S.W.3d 81 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (concurrence notes potential mandamus remedies for post-appeal cost issues)