# Mayer v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · March 24, 2010 · 309 S.W.3d 552

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9717821

## Case

- **Full name:** Kenneth Lee MAYER, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** March 24, 2010
- **Citations:** 309 S.W.3d 552; 2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 100; 2010 WL 1050331
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Keasler
- **Judges:** Johnson, Price, Hervey, Holcomb, Cochran, Keasler, Keller, Meyers, Womack
- **Cited by:** 1,033 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9717821

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding “. . . that no trial objection is required to preserve an appellate claim of insufficient evidence, thus the court of appeals did not err in addressing appellant's complaint about the order to reimburse court-appointed attorney fees”
- holding that improperly assessing attorney’s fees against a defendant without legally sufficient evidence may be challenged for the first time on appeal
- holding that factual predicate for the assessment of court costs included in a bill of costs must be supported by sufficient evidence in the record
- holding that factual predicate for assessment of court costs included in bill of costs must be supported by sufficient evidence
- reasoning that appellate court is not required to remand case to trial court before determining that evidence of defendant’s financial resources and ability to pay was insufficient to support court-ordered repayment of attorney fees

## Opinion text

KEASLER, J.,
filed a dissenting opinion in which KELLER, P.J., MEYERS, and WOMACK, JJ., joined.
The court of appeals in this case did not address whether a challenge to the reimbursement order could be raised for the first time on appeal when Kenneth Lee Mayer failed to object to the order in the trial court. Preservation of error is a systemic requirement, and the courts of appeals are obligated to consider whether each point of error raised on appeal is subject to preservation requirements, and if so, whether the point of error was properly preserved. 1 I disagree with the majority’s contention that Mayer raised a legal sufficiency claim. As evidenced by the briefs before us, the exact nature of the issue raised by Mayer is hotly contested. 2 It is also debatable whether a sufficiency review is appropriate in this case. 3 The preservation issue here is unsettled, so we should give the court of appeals the opportunity to address this issue in the first instance. 4 I would vacate the court of appeals’s judgment and summarily remand the case to the court of appeals so that it could determine whether Mayer was required to preserve his complaint about the reimbursement order.
. See Wilson v. State, - S.W.3d -, - - (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (Keasler, J., dissenting); Jones v. State, 942 S.W.2d 1 , 2 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) ("Preservation of error is a systemic requirement that a first-level appellate court should ordinarily review on its own motion.").
. See Idowu v. State, 73 S.W.3d 918, 921 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) ("If a defendant wishes to complain about the appropriateness of (as opposed to the factual basis for) a trial court’s restitution order, he must do so in the trial court, and must do so explicitly.”).
. See e.g., Speth v. State, 6 S.W.3d 530 , 531 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (stating that imposition of probation conditions is not appropriate for a sufficiency review).
. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1 requires courts of appeals to address every issue raised and necessary to the final disposition of the case in its opinions).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9717821. Public record. Not legal advice.