DAVID ANASTACIO MARQUEZ APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS APPELLEE (2011)

Court of Appeals of Texas, Amarillo.

DAVID ANASTACIO MARQUEZ, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

NO. 07–10–0366–CR

Decided: March 30, 2011

Before QUINN, C.J. and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

DISSENTING OPINION

The majority finds that Appellant's prior plea agreement and plea are evidence of his financial ability to pay $337.50 of the $637.50 in court-appointed attorney's fees. I respectfully disagree.

Contracting to pay a debt and having the actual ability to pay a debt are two entirely different concepts. Our jurisprudence is replete with examples of people who contracted to pay a debt but were unable to fulfill that obligation.

Furthermore, the determination of an ability to pay must be made at the time of the assessment. The ability to pay at some past or future point in time is no evidence of Appellant's present ability to pay. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.05(g) (West Supp.2010). Because I would reform the judgment to find no attorney's fees were properly assessable, I respectfully dissent.

Patrick A. Pirtle Justice

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network