Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Dominique Rayvon Bass pleaded guilty to second-degree felony indecency with a child by sexual contact. Under a plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed him on community supervision for eight years. Bass did not appeal the deferred-adjudication order.
After the State alleged multiple violations of his supervision conditions, including the commission of additional offenses, the trial court revoked Bass’s community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to 20 years in prison. The written judgment also imposed a $1,500 fine and $1,125 in attorney’s fees. On appeal, Bass challenged the treatment of alleged recantations and affidavits of non-prosecution, the voluntariness of his original guilty plea, and the constitutionality of his sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Court of Appeals dismissed Bass’s first two issues for want of jurisdiction. Because those claims attacked the original plea proceeding and order imposing deferred adjudication, Bass was required to raise them in an appeal when deferred adjudication was first imposed. His claim that the plea was involuntary did not make the original order void, and the court noted that actual-innocence claims are ordinarily pursued through habeas corpus proceedings.
The court had jurisdiction to review Bass’s challenge to the sentence imposed after revocation, but held that the 20-year term was not cruel and unusual punishment because it fell within the statutory range of two to 20 years for a second-degree felony. The court nevertheless modified the judgment to delete the $1,500 fine because it was not orally pronounced and to delete the $1,125 attorney’s-fee assessment because Bass was indigent and the record did not show that he had become able to pay.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant generally must challenge the original guilty plea or deferred-adjudication proceeding when deferred adjudication is first imposed, not after revocation.
- A 20-year sentence for second-degree felony indecency with a child was within the statutory range and did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
- A written judgment cannot impose a fine omitted from the oral sentence, and court-appointed attorney’s fees cannot be assessed against an indigent defendant without evidence of an ability to pay.
Why It Matters
The opinion reinforces the strict timing rule governing direct appeals from deferred-adjudication proceedings: later appeals following revocation generally cannot reopen challenges to the original plea. Defendants asserting actual innocence after that deadline may need to seek habeas relief instead.
It also underscores that appellate courts will correct unauthorized monetary assessments even while affirming the term of imprisonment. Oral pronouncement controls over a conflicting written judgment, and indigency findings cannot be disregarded when assessing appointed-counsel fees.