Can an indigent person be ordered to pay court costs and attorney fees in Texas?
This question has been addressed in 6 Texas court opinions:
Griffin v. Cruz
COA01 — January 29, 2026
In this case, an appellant sought to challenge a protective order issued by a Brazoria County district court. However, the appellant failed to fulfill basic administrative requirements, specifically the payment of appellate filing fees and clerk’s record costs. Despite receiving multiple deficiency notices and warnings from the First Court of Appeals, the appellant neither remitted payment nor filed a statement of indigence. The court analyzed the case under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 5, 37.3(b), and 42.3, concluding that the failure to advance the record was the appellant's fault. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, leaving the original protective order undisturbed.
Litigation Takeaway
“Success in the appellate court requires more than just a good argument; it requires strict adherence to administrative deadlines. Failing to pay filing fees or arrange for the record—or failing to prove you cannot afford them—can result in your appeal being dismissed before the court ever considers the merits of your case.”
Keenan Deandre Black v. The State of Texas
COA02 — February 5, 2026
In Black v. State, the court addressed a conflict where a trial judge orally waived a $6,000 fine during sentencing, yet the final written judgment still included the charge. Additionally, the defendant argued his probation should not be revoked because his supervision officer had allegedly modified his deadlines. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed the 'Rendition vs. Entry' doctrine, affirming that a judge's oral pronouncement in open court is the legally operative event that controls over a conflicting written document. Furthermore, the court held that community supervision is a judicial order, not a private contract, meaning only a judge—not a probation officer—has the authority to modify its terms. The court modified the judgment to delete the fine but upheld the probation revocation.
Litigation Takeaway
“The judge’s oral ruling from the bench is the ultimate authority; if your written decree contains errors or extra terms not mentioned by the judge, the oral record can be used to fix it. More importantly, never rely on 'side deals' or verbal permission from caseworkers or third parties to deviate from a court order—only a formal, judge-signed modification can legally protect you.”
Pena v. The State of Texas
COA07 — January 28, 2026
In Pena v. State, the Seventh Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court could assess $1,600 in attorney’s fees and duplicate court costs against a defendant who had been determined indigent and appointed counsel. The legal issues arose from two criminal cases adjudicated in a single, consolidated proceeding. The court analyzed Texas law, which presumes that a party remains indigent throughout the proceedings unless a 'material change' in financial circumstances is proven. Additionally, the court reviewed statutory prohibitions against assessing court costs multiple times for cases heard together. The court held that the trial court erred by assessing attorney's fees without evidence of the defendant's ability to pay and by double-charging court costs, resulting in a modification of the judgments to strike the improper fees and costs.
Litigation Takeaway
“When multiple legal matters are heard in a single trial, always audit the clerk’s bill of costs to ensure you aren't being double-charged for administrative fees. Furthermore, if a party has filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs (Rule 145), they are generally shielded from paying attorney's fees unless the opposing party can prove a material improvement in their financial situation.”
In the Matter of Marriage of Melissa Ramirez and Silvestre Fermin Torres and In the Interest of R.S.T. and A.D.T, Children
COA13 — January 29, 2026
In a family law dispute, Melissa Ramirez filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs. Despite this, the trial court ordered her to pay half of the mediation fees without first holding an evidentiary hearing or issuing detailed findings as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(f). Ramirez challenged the order using Rule 145(g)'s expedited review process. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals dismissed the challenge for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that because the trial court failed to follow the mandatory procedural steps of Rule 145(f), the resulting order was not technically issued 'under this rule,' making the expedited appellate process unavailable.
Litigation Takeaway
“If a trial court orders an indigent party to pay costs (such as mediation or amicus attorney fees) without first holding a formal hearing or providing detailed factual findings, you cannot use the expedited motion process in Rule 145(g) to challenge the order; instead, you must file a petition for writ of mandamus to compel the court to follow proper procedure.”
In the Matter of B.T.
COA02 — January 30, 2026
In In the Matter of B.T., the Second Court of Appeals reviewed a juvenile court's order transferring a young man to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to finish an eighteen-year murder sentence. While the court found that the transfer was required by law because the respondent could not complete his minimum confinement before turning nineteen, it identified an error regarding court costs. The appellate court held that because the respondent had been declared indigent, that status was presumed to continue through the appeal. Consequently, the court affirmed the prison transfer but modified the judgment to strike all assessed court costs.
Litigation Takeaway
“Once a party's indigent status is established under the Family Code, it is legally presumed to continue throughout the litigation; attorneys should always audit final judgments and bills of costs to ensure clerks do not improperly assess fees against indigent clients.”
Michael Damone Jones v. The State of Texas
COA12 — January 30, 2026
In Jones v. State, the Twelfth Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court could legally assess attorney's fees as court costs against a defendant who had already been declared indigent. The court analyzed Texas statutes requiring that once indigency is established, it is presumed to continue unless the record shows a 'material change' in the individual's financial circumstances. Finding that the record contained no evidence of financial improvement, the appellate court held the fee assessment was improper and modified the judgment to strike the $300 in attorney's fees.
Litigation Takeaway
“If you have been declared indigent by the court (such as through a Rule 145 Statement), you are protected from being ordered to pay attorney's fees or court costs unless the opposing party can prove a significant improvement in your financial situation.”