Roberts v. State, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 9102

Roberts pled guilty to theft after a plea bargain; the theft was enhanced by prior convictions under Tex. Penal Code §§ 12.42, 31.03.
The trial court sentenced Roberts to two years in TDCJ.
Roberts challenged the trial court’s order requiring payment of $855 in court-appointed attorney fees.
Roberts claimed indigent status and sought to avoid paying fees under Art. 26.05(g).
The trial court conducted its indigence finding post-sentencing, relying on counsel’s statements rather than a developed record.
We consider whether appellate permission and fee-ability under Art. 26.05(g) were appropriately determined and certified for appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion taxing fees under Art. 26.05(g).	Roberts lacked financial resources; no material change shown.	Court presumed indigence and allowed future earnings as basis to pay.	Yes; the fee award was improper for lack of evidence of present ability to pay.
Whether Roberts had right to appeal in a plea-bargain case despite certification.	Certification indicated no right of appeal.	Certification, though modified, indicated permission to appeal the fee ruling.	Jurisdiction proper; certification sufficient to permit appeal on the fee issue.
Whether Mayer v. State required remand for evidentiary inquiry on financial resources.	State urged remand for additional evidence.	Record lacked material change—evidentiary need disputed.	No remand; sufficiency standard applied; record lacked evidence of a material change.

Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (requires evidence of financial resources or change in resources to support art. 26.05(g))
Mayer v. State, 274 S.W.3d 898 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008) (aff'd by Tex. Crim. App. 2010 on sufficiency grounds)
Carroll v. State, 119 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003) (permits modification of certification form to reflect appeal rights)