Background
In 2018, Damorian Dante Hall pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and indecency with a child by exposure pursuant to separate plea agreements. The trial court placed him on seven years of deferred adjudication community supervision with $700 fines in each case. Within months, the State petitioned to revoke Hall’s community supervision in both cases, alleging multiple violations of the conditions imposed.
At the revocation hearing in May 2025, Hall pleaded “true” to the alleged violations. The trial court adjudicated him guilty in both cases and sentenced him to fifteen years imprisonment for the robbery conviction and ten years for the indecency conviction. The trial court’s judgments included the original $700 fines in both cases, $2,560 in attorney’s fee reimbursement in the robbery case, and reparations totaling $4,718 in the robbery case and $415 in the indecency case. The trial court did not orally pronounce any fines at sentencing. Hall timely appealed both convictions.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed Hall’s convictions as to guilt and adjudication but modified the judgments to correct several financial penalty errors. The court held that because the trial court failed to orally pronounce fines at sentencing, the $659 and $700 fines must be deleted from the judgments in the robbery and indecency cases respectively, as oral pronouncement controls over written judgments in sentencing.
The court also deleted the $2,560 in attorney’s fee reimbursement from the robbery case judgment, finding that Hall had been declared indigent (“Full” indigency status) throughout the proceedings and the record contained no evidence that Hall had the ability to pay such fees at the time of his original guilty plea or at revocation. Texas law requires an explicit finding of the defendant’s financial resources and ability to pay before such reimbursement can be imposed.
Additionally, the court struck a $25 time-payment fee as premature, holding that the pendency of an appeal tolls the clock for assessing such fees and prevents their imposition during appellate review. The court deleted the $4,718 in reparations from the robbery case judgment because the record lacked evidentiary support for that amount—the judgment contained no itemization, explanation of purpose, or documentation beyond a bare docket entry. However, the court retained the $415 in reparations in the indecency case because a detailed “Revocation Restitution/Reparation Balance Sheet” broke down the amount into specific fees ($10 for Crime Stoppers and $405 for a sex offender special fee) that Hall had been ordered to pay as conditions of his original deferred adjudication.
Key Takeaways
- Fines imposed at sentencing must be orally pronounced by the trial court; if not, they must be deleted from the written judgment, even if included in the judgment document itself.
- Attorney’s fee reimbursement cannot be ordered without an explicit determination that the defendant has the financial resources and ability to pay such fees at the time of sentencing or adjudication.
- Time-payment fees cannot be assessed while a defendant’s appeal is pending; such fees may only be imposed more than thirty days after the appellate mandate issues if the defendant has failed to pay other court costs.
- Reparations orders must have evidentiary support in the trial record; a Balance Sheet itemizing specific outstanding fees from community supervision satisfies this requirement, but bare judgments containing unsupported amounts do not.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important procedural protections at the intersection of criminal sentencing and due process. It reinforces that trial courts must follow formal procedures when imposing financial obligations—oral pronouncement of fines, explicit findings regarding ability to pay, and evidentiary support for reparations are not mere technicalities but mandatory requirements. The ruling also protects indigent defendants by preventing courts from imposing attorney’s fee reimbursement absent proof of financial capacity to pay and by ensuring that appellate rights are not undermined by premature fee collection efforts.
The decision illustrates the Texas appellate courts’ practice of independently reviewing records in Anders cases (where appellate counsel contends there are no viable grounds for appeal) and correcting procedural errors even when the underlying convictions are sound. Here, although the convictions themselves were affirmed, the court used its supervisory role to eliminate improper financial penalties that could burden an indigent defendant’s reentry and compliance with supervision conditions.