Sharol Martin v. State, 405 S.W.3d 944

Martin, indigent, was prosecuted for conspiracy to manufacture more than four but less than 200 grams of methamphetamine.
The trial court appointed a court‑appointed attorney and an investigator to assist Martin’s defense.
The judgment taxed $1,325.20 in attorney’s fees and $437.50 in investigator’s fees, plus $314.00 in other costs.
The indictment alleged conspiracy to manufacture, not actual manufacture, of methamphetamine; the judgment described the offense under §481.112 and §12.42 as a first‑degree felony enhanced to repeat offender.
The court modified the judgment to delete the attorney’s fees, reclassify the offense as a second‑degree felony enhanced to a first‑degree punishment under §15.02, and to deduct the investigator’s costs as a non‑legislatively mandated cost, affirmed as modified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether indigent status bars attorney’s fees and investigator costs	Martin argues fees are improper for an indigent	State concedes attorney’s fees improper; investigator fees disputed	Attorney’s fees must be deleted; investigator costs not clearly mandated by statute and must be reviewed
Proper offense classification and punishment range	Martin contends offense is a second‑degree felony enhanced by §12.42	State argues offense is a first‑degree felony under §481.112 enhanced by §12.42	Judgment modified to reflect a second‑degree felony enhanced to first‑degree punishment; statute corrected to §15.02 rather than §481.112

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963) (indigent defense right to counsel at trial)
Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (U.S. 1963) (indigent defendant right to counsel on first appeal)
Griﬃn v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (U.S. 1956) (indigent defendants must have access to courts without prepayment barriers)
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (U.S. 1971) (equal protection in access to courts when unable to pay)
Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1959) (prepayment issues related to appellate process)
Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (U.S. 1985) (necessity of expert assistance for indigent defendants)
Ex parte Briggs, 187 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (constitutional requirement to provide basic tools for defense)
Owen v. State, 352 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011) (legislatively mandated costs may be imposed post proceedings; some limits)
Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (indigency considerations in assessing costs/fees)
Roberts v. State, 327 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2010) (indigency and cost assessment principles)
McFatridge v. State, 309 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (indigence determinations for costs and services)