CROSSOVER: Revenge Porn Adjudication: Leveraging ‘Pleas of True’ to Counseling Violations and the Presumption of Indigency in Family Law.

Provo v. State, 07-25-00309-CR, February 18, 2026.

On appeal from the 297th District Court, Tarrant County.

Synopsis

In an Anders review of an adjudication of guilt involving “revenge porn,” the Amarillo Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the judgment to delete unauthorized costs. The Court held that time payment fees are premature while an appeal is pending and that court-appointed attorney’s fees cannot be assessed against a defendant previously found indigent without evidence of a material change in financial circumstances.

Relevance to Family Law

While Provo arises from a criminal adjudication, its holding provides critical strategic leverage for family law litigators in two specific areas: enforcement and indigency. In high-conflict custody cases where a party is under a suspended commitment order or quasi-probationary conditions (such as court-ordered psychological counseling or sexual misconduct programs), a “plea of true” to a violation functions as an irrevocable admission that can be weaponized in subsequent best-interest or character determinations. Furthermore, the Court’s strict adherence to the “presumption of indigency” offers a defensive shield for low-income clients. If a party has previously qualified for a fee waiver or court-appointed counsel, the opposing party cannot recover attorney’s fees in enforcement proceedings without a specific evidentiary showing and a trial court finding of a “material change” in the party’s financial status.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

In June 2024, Tydran Provo pleaded guilty to the state jail felony of disclosing or threatening to disclose intimate visual material (colloquially known as “revenge porn”). The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for five years. One year later, the State moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging Provo failed to comply with four conditions: completion of a sexual misconduct program, completion of general counseling, submission of non-diluted urine samples, and reporting to the supervision department. Provo pleaded “true” to all allegations. The trial court subsequently adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to twelve months’ confinement. As part of the judgment, the court assessed a $15 time payment fee and $680 in court-appointed attorney’s fees against Provo, despite his prior status as an indigent defendant.

Issues Decided

1. Whether a trial court errs by assessing a time payment fee while an appeal is still pending.
2. Whether the trial court may assess court-appointed attorney’s fees against a defendant previously found indigent without evidence of a change in financial status.
3. Whether any non-frivolous grounds exist to challenge an adjudication of guilt following a “plea of true.”

Rules Applied

The Court relied on Dulin v. State, 620 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021), which establishes that a time payment fee must be struck if assessed prematurely, as an appeal suspends the duty to pay court costs. Regarding attorney’s fees, the Court applied the statutory presumption of continued indigency found in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, as interpreted by Woodard v. State, No. 07-23-00377-CR. Under these rules, once a party is determined to be indigent, they are presumed to remain indigent for the remainder of the proceedings unless a “material change” in financial circumstances is established by evidence and supported by a specific finding from the trial court.

Application

The Seventh Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the record following the filing of an Anders brief by Provo’s counsel. The court found that because Provo entered a plea of “true” to the violations of his community supervision—specifically the failure to complete sexual misconduct and general counseling—there were no non-frivolous grounds to challenge the adjudication of guilt itself. However, the court identified two legal errors in the assessment of costs.

First, the court analyzed the $15 time payment fee. Because the appeal was still pending, the “clock” for payment was legally suspended, making the assessment premature. Second, the court scrutinized the $680 assessment for court-appointed attorney’s fees. Since Provo had been previously determined to be indigent, and because the record lacked any evidence or a specific finding that his financial circumstances had materially improved, the assessment of those fees was legally unauthorized. The court noted that even though Provo had signed a community supervision agreement to pay “TBD” attorney’s fees, that agreement did not override the evidentiary requirement to prove a change in financial status at the time of the final judgment.

Holding

The Court of Appeals held that a “plea of true” to violations of community supervision—particularly regarding failure to attend court-ordered counseling—is sufficient to support an adjudication of guilt and effectively precludes a successful appeal on the merits of the revocation.

The Court further held that a time payment fee is prematurely assessed if the case is currently under appellate review, requiring the fee to be struck from the bill of costs.

Finally, the Court held that the assessment of court-appointed attorney’s fees against a party previously found indigent constitutes reversible error when the record lacks an express finding of a material change in the party’s financial circumstances. The court modified the judgment to delete both the time payment fee and the attorney’s fees.

Practical Application

For family law practitioners, Provo highlights the danger of “pleas of true” in enforcement or contempt proceedings. If a client is accused of violating an injunction or a specialized counseling requirement, an admission (even if intended to show “contrition”) creates an airtight record for the opposing side to seek a change in custody or a restrictive possession order. On the financial side, this case is a powerful tool for defending clients against fee-shifting. If you represent a party who filed an un-contested Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs early in the litigation, Provo suggests that the burden is on the opposing party to prove a “material change” in your client’s finances before the court can award attorney’s fees against them in an enforcement action.

Checklists

Defending Against Attorney’s Fee Awards

• Verify that a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs (or an Order finding indigency) is in the record.
• Object to any final order or judgment that includes attorney’s fees without a specific evidentiary hearing on the client’s current financial status.
• Cite Provo and the “presumption of continued indigency” to argue that the burden of proof rests on the movant to show a “material change.”

Managing “Crossover” Counseling Violations

• Advise clients that admitting to a failure to complete counseling (pleading “true”) is a permanent stain on the record that can be used in a Holley factor analysis.
• In cases involving “revenge porn” or visual material, ensure the client is enrolled in a compliant program immediately to avoid a “true” plea situation.
• Review the Bill of Costs in any enforcement order to ensure that “time payment” fees or interest are not being assessed while post-judgment motions or appeals are pending.

Citation

Provo v. State, No. 07-25-00309-CR (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 18, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Link to Full Opinion

Family Law Crossover

The “weaponization” of Provo in a Texas divorce or custody case lies in the intersection of criminal history and parental fitness. A conviction for the disclosure of intimate visual material (Tex. Penal Code § 21.16) is a powerful “bad acts” evidence point under the Holley factors, particularly regarding the emotional welfare of children and the parental abilities of the offender. More importantly, Provo provides a strategic roadmap for protecting indigent clients from the “fee-shifting trap.” If a trial court attempts to award attorney’s fees in a final decree or enforcement order against a client who previously qualified for court-appointed counsel or a fee waiver, the practitioner should use Provo to strike those fees. Without an explicit finding of a “material change” in the party’s financial reality, the assessment of fees is a reversible abuse of discretion.

~~71888074-8fd4-411d-95c6-0707c5b054b3~~