What is the litigation takeaway from Michael Damone Jones v. The State of Texas?

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.

What is the summary of Michael Damone Jones v. The State of Texas?

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.

How does a Texas appellate court review the assessment of court costs in a criminal case?

When the imposition of court costs is challenged on appeal, the court reviews the assessment to determine if a legal basis exists for the challenged costs. In Michael Damone Jones v. State, the Twelfth Court of Appeals emphasized that only statutorily authorized court costs may be assessed against a criminal defendant, citing Johnson v. State and Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 103.002.

What factual findings must a trial court make before ordering reimbursement of court-appointed attorney's fees?

To order a defendant to offset the costs of legal services, a trial court must determine, based on facts in the record, that the defendant has the financial resources to pay. This requirement is governed by Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 26.05(g). As noted in Jones v. State, the court must specifically find that the defendant's financial circumstances have materially changed since the initial indigency determination.

Are court-appointed attorney's fees considered 'mandatory' court costs in Texas?

No, attorney's fees are specifically excluded from the definition of mandatory costs. According to the Court of Criminal Appeals in Johnson v. State, a mandatory cost is a predetermined, legislatively mandated obligation imposed upon conviction, other than attorney’s fees. Consequently, attorney's fees cannot be assessed as a matter of course without a specific finding of the ability to pay.

How did the Twelfth Court of Appeals resolve the improper assessment of $300 in attorney's fees in the Jones case?

In Michael Damone Jones v. State, the Twelfth Court of Appeals modified the trial court's judgment by striking the $300.00 assessment for attorney's fees from the bill of costs. The court determined that because the record did not reflect a material change in Jones's financial circumstances after he was found indigent, the assessment was improper under Articles 26.04(p) and 26.05(g).

What is the remedy when a Texas trial court improperly assesses attorney's fees against an indigent defendant?

If a defendant challenges attorney's fees and the appellate court finds no evidence of financial ability to pay in the record, the appellate court will modify the judgment and the order to withdraw funds to reflect the correct amount. Following the precedent in Mayer v. State, the Jones court struck the improper fees while affirming the remainder of the conviction as modified.

Michael Damone Jones v. The State of Texas | Texas Family Law Powerhouse

Q: What is the legal presumption regarding a defendant's indigent status during criminal proceedings?

Under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 26.04(p), a defendant determined to be indigent is presumed to remain indigent for the remainder of the proceedings unless a material change in financial circumstances occurs. The court in Jones v. State held that without evidence in the record demonstrating such a change, there is no legal basis to order the reimbursement of attorney's fees.

Jones v. State, 12-25-00217-CR, January 30, 2026.

On appeal from the 7th Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas.

Synopsis

The Twelfth Court of Appeals held that a trial court errs by assessing attorney's fees as court costs against a defendant previously determined to be indigent unless the record affirmatively demonstrates a material change in the defendant's financial circumstances. Because the State conceded the error and the record lacked evidence of any such financial improvement, the court modified the judgment to strike the improperly assessed fees.

Relevance to Family Law

While Jones is a criminal proceeding, its logic is a powerful tool for Texas family law practitioners representing low-income clients in SAPCR or enforcement actions. The "presumption of continued indigency" mirrors the protections found in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145. When a trial court attempts to assess amicus attorney fees, ad litem fees, or opposing counsel fees against a party who has successfully filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs, Jones provides the appellate framework to challenge those awards. If the record does not reflect a "material change" in the party’s ability to pay, an award of fees is legally insufficient and subject to modification on appeal.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Michael Damone Jones was indicted for theft of property (less than $2,500) with prior conviction enhancements. During the proceedings, the trial court determined that Jones was indigent and appointed counsel to represent him at both the trial and appellate levels. Jones subsequently pleaded guilty to the charges and true to the enhancements, resulting in a twenty-month sentence. Despite the prior finding of indigency, the trial court’s final judgment and the accompanying "Order to Withdraw Funds" assessed total court costs of $551.50, which included $300.00 specifically designated for court-appointed attorney's fees. Jones challenged this assessment on appeal, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the cost award.

Issues Decided

The primary issue was whether the trial court improperly assessed attorney's fees as court costs against a defendant who had been declared indigent, in the absence of evidence showing a material change in his financial circumstances.

Rules Applied

The court relied on Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 26.04(p) and 26.05(g). Article 26.04(p) mandates that a defendant determined to be indigent is presumed to remain so for the remainder of the proceedings unless a material change in financial circumstances occurs. Article 26.05(g) allows a court to order a defendant to offset the costs of legal services only if the court determines—based on facts in the record—that the defendant has the financial resources to do so. The court also cited Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010), for the principle that the record must support the ability to pay before reimbursement can be ordered.

Application

The appellate court performed a sufficiency review of the basis for the costs. It noted that the trial court had explicitly found Jones indigent at the outset and for the appeal. Under the statutory framework, this created a legal presumption of continued indigency. For the trial court to validly assess the $300.00 in attorney's fees, there had to be affirmative evidence in the record demonstrating that Jones’s financial status had materially changed for the better. The Twelfth Court of Appeals found the record entirely devoid of such evidence. The State conceded the error, acknowledging that the assessment was improper under the law.

Holding

The court held that there was no legal basis for ordering the reimbursement of attorney's fees because the record did not demonstrate a material change in the defendant’s financial circumstances. The court modified the bill of costs by striking the $300.00 assessment and reduced the total costs in the judgment and withdrawal order from $551.50 to $251.50. The judgment was affirmed as modified.

Practical Application

This case is a strategic asset for family law litigators dealing with "pro bono" or low-bono appointments. In many high-conflict custody cases, courts appoint an Amicus Attorney or Attorney Ad Litem and often split the costs between the parties. If your client has qualified as indigent under Rule 145, you must ensure that any final decree or order does not inadvertently assess these fees against them as "costs" or "reimbursement." If the opposing party or a court-appointed professional seeks such fees, you can utilize the Jones logic to argue that the burden of proof rests on the movant to show a "material change" in your client's financial resources before the court has the authority to shift those fees.

Checklists

Preserving the Indigency Shield

Verify the Affidavit: Ensure the Rule 145 Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs is properly filed and not successfully contested.
Monitor the Final Decree: Review the "Court Costs" and "Attorney's Fees" sections of the proposed decree to ensure no fees are assessed against the indigent party.
Object to Findings: If the court attempts to award fees, object on the record that there is no evidence of a "material change" in financial circumstances.

Challenging an Adverse Fee Award

Scour the Record: Check the reporter's record for any testimony regarding recent employment, inheritance, or windfalls that could constitute a material change.
Cite the Presumption: Remind the court that once indigency is established, the burden is not on the indigent party to prove they are still poor; the burden is on the State (or movant) to prove they are now solvent.
Request Modification: If a judgment is signed with improper fees, file a Motion to Reform the Judgment citing the Mayer and Jones line of cases.

Citation

Jones v. State, No. 12-25-00217-CR (Tex. App.—Tyler Jan. 30, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

Full Opinion

View Full Opinion Here

Family Law Crossover

In Texas family law, the weaponization of attorney’s fees is a common tactic to force settlements. However, when representing a client with a Rule 145 filing, Jones provides a shield. If an opposing party in a divorce or custody modification seeks to recover fees from your indigent client, you can argue that the court lacks the statutory authority to award those fees unless the movant can prove a material change in circumstances. This prevents the "stacking" of legal debt on a party the court has already deemed unable to pay, effectively neutralizing the threat of fee-shifting as a settlement lever in cases involving low-income litigants. ~~b3ea8b77-b18c-4e45-bce8-9edf8e1c5b56~~

Michael Damone Jones v. The State of Texas

Litigation Takeaway