Affirmed as Reformed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 14, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00874-CR

MIGUEL ANGEL SANCHEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 208th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1315362

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Miguel Angel Sanchez pleaded guilty to continuous sexual abuse 

of a child, and the trial court sentenced him to 45 years in prison. In a single issue 

on appeal, appellant contends that there is insufficient evidence in the record to 

support the court’s order that he pay a particular amount in court costs. We reform 

the trial court’s judgment to delete the specific amount of costs, and affirm the 

judgment as reformed.
2

In its judgment, the trial court ordered appellant to pay $580 in court costs. 

Appellant requested the district clerk include the bill of costs in the appellate 

record. The clerk’s record does not contain a bill of costs. In Johnson v. State, 389 

S.W.3d 513, 517 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. granted), this court 

held that if the record does not support the assessment of a certain dollar amount in 

costs, the trial court errs in entering a specific dollar amount in its judgment. 

The State argues that there are numerous provisions in the Texas Code of 

Criminal Procedure authorizing various court costs to be paid by a defendant when 

convicted of a felony offense. The State suggests several specific articles of the 

Code of Criminal Procedure and three sections of the Local Government Code 

providing for fees that, if assessed against appellant, would add up to an amount of 

at least $580.1 Therefore, the State maintains, the evidence is sufficient to support 

the $580 in court costs reflected in the judgment.

We have previously rejected this argument. In Rogers v. State, 402 S.W.3d 

410, 420 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. filed), we held that to affirm 

the judgment for costs merely because a number of statutes authorize certain costs 

or fees that could have been assessed against the defendant—without regard to 

whether they were actually assessed—would be speculative. Moreover, without 

any indication in the record which specific fees or costs were actually assessed, a 

defendant has no way to challenge their correctness on appeal or as provided under 

article 103.008 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 

103.008 (authorizing defendant to file a motion within one year after the date of 

the final disposition of a case in which costs were imposed to correct any error in 

 

1

See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 102.0045, 102.005, 102.011, 102.0169, 102.017 and 

Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code §§ 133.102, 133.105, 133.107.
3

the costs). Id. 

The trial court did not err in ordering appellant to pay court costs, as such 

costs are mandated by law, but the court did err in entering a specific dollar 

amount without any support in the record for that dollar amount. See Johnson, 389 

S.W.3d at 516. Because there is no evidence in the record to support the trial 

court’s assessment of a specific dollar amount as court costs, we sustain appellant’s 

sole issue and reform the trial court’s judgment to delete the specific dollar amount 

of costs assessed. See id.; see also Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552, 554–56 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2010) (holding that sufficient evidence must support an assessment of 

costs in a judgment).

We reform the trial court’s judgment to delete the listing of a specific 

amount of court costs and affirm the judgment as reformed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Jamison.

Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).