NOS. 12-20-00115-CR

 12-20-00116-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

BRYAN ANTHONY HOPE, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEALS FROM THE 241ST 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Bryan Anthony Hope appeals his convictions for aggravated assault on a public servant

in trial court cause number 241-1419-19 and evading arrest or detention with a vehicle in trial 

court cause number 241-1489-19. Appellant raises three issues in two separate briefs 

challenging the trial court’s assessment of court costs. We modify and affirm as modified.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated assault on a public servant1 and 

evading arrest or detention with a vehicle.2 Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement with the State, 

he pleaded “guilty” to the offenses, and the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed him

on community supervision for a term of ten years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to 

adjudicate Appellant’s guilt alleging several violations of his community supervision conditions. 

Appellant pleaded “true” to the allegations. Ultimately, the trial court found the allegations 

“true,” found Appellant “guilty” of the charges, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for 

1 A first-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a), (b)(2)(B) (West 2019).

2 A third-degree felony. See id. § 38.04(a), (b)(2)(A) (West 2016).
2

thirty years in the aggravated assault case and ten years in the evading case. This appeal 

followed.

ADEQUACY OF BILL OF COSTS SUPPORT

In Appellant’s sole issue in trial court cause number 241-1419-19, he argues that the trial 

court erred by ordering the withholding of funds from his inmate trust account in an amount not 

supported by the bill of costs.

Standard of Review and Applicable Law

The code of criminal procedure requires that a judgment order a defendant to pay court 

costs. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.16 (West 2018); Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385, 

390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). A cost is not payable by the person charged with the cost until a 

written bill containing the items of cost is produced, signed by the officer who charged the cost 

or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the cost, and provided to the person charged 

with the cost. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 103.001(b) (West 2018). We review the 

assessment of court costs on appeal to determine if there is a basis for the cost. Johnson, 423 

S.W.3d at 390.

Analysis

The judgment in cause number 241-1419-19 reflects court costs in the amount of 

$229.00. The attached order to withdraw funds from Appellant’s inmate trust account states that

“[c]ourt costs, fees and/or fines and/or restitution have been incurred in the amount $229.00; 

30.00” and orders that payment be made from the account. The bill of costs lists various fees 

totaling $259.00 with a balance of $239.00. The fee list includes a $30.00 fee designated as 

“Time Payment Fee 2020.”

Appellant argues that the $30.00 fee named in the withdrawal order is not supported by 

the bill of costs and should be deleted. The State contends that the $30.00 fee named in the 

withdrawal order represents the time payment fee named in the bill of costs. However, the State 

contends the amount of the fee is wrong and should be corrected to $25.00. We agree with the 

State that the fee is supported by the bill of costs, but we also agree with Appellant that it must

be deleted.

The pendency of an appeal stops the clock for purposes of the time payment fee. Dulin 

v. State, 620 S.W.3d 129, 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). Consequently, the assessment of the time 
3

payment fee in each of Appellant’s cases is premature, and the fees should be struck in their

entirety, without prejudice to a time payment fee being assessed later if, more than thirty days 

after the issuance of the appellate mandate, Appellant has failed to completely pay any fine, 

court costs, or restitution he owes. See id. We sustain Appellant’s sole issue in cause number 

241-1419-19.

DUPLICATE COURT COST ASSESSMENT

In Appellant’s first issue in trial court cause number 241-1489-19, he argues that the trial 

court erred by assessing court costs twice in a single criminal action. The State concedes this

error. 

The code of criminal procedure provides as follows:

(a) In a single criminal action in which a defendant is convicted of two or more offenses or of 

multiple counts of the same offense, the court may assess each court cost or fee only once 

against the defendant. 

(b) In a criminal action described by Subsection (a), each court cost or fee the amount of which 

is determined according to the category of offense must be assessed using the highest category 

of offense that is possible based on the defendant’s convictions. 

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.073(a), (b) (West 2018). In this context, we construe the 

phrase “[i]n a single criminal action” to mean in a single trial or plea proceeding. Hurlburt v. 

State, 506 S.W.3d 199, 203 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, no pet.). 

The record in this case shows that the allegations and evidence of both offenses were 

presented in a single plea proceeding, or “criminal action.” See id. Therefore, the trial court was 

authorized to assess each court cost and fee only once against Appellant. See TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 102.073(a). However, the judgment in cause number 241-1419-19 shows a court 

cost assessment of $229.00, and the judgment in cause number 241-1489-19 shows a court cost 

assessment of $339.00 and $30.00. The two bills of costs list many of the same fees, which total 

$229.00 in cause number 241-1419-19 and $234.00 in cause number 241-1489-19.

3 We 

conclude that the trial court erred by assessing each of these fees twice against Appellant. See id.

Accordingly, we sustain Appellant’s first issue in cause number 241-1489-19. 

3 The $5.00 difference in the amounts results from the fee designated in both bills as “Arrest Fee – Lindale 

PD $5.00” being charged in the incorrect amount of $10.00 in cause number 241-1489-19.
4

We have the authority to correct a trial court’s judgment to make the record speak the 

truth when we have the necessary data and information. Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 

(Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d). Because we have the necessary data and information to 

correct the amount of court costs in this case, we conclude that the judgment and withdrawal 

order in trial court cause number 241-1489-19 should be modified to remove the duplicated court 

cost amount of $234.00. See id.; TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b).

LOCAL CONSOLIDATED FEE

In Appellant’s second issue in trial court cause number 241-1489-19, he argues that the 

trial court improperly assessed several fees in addition to those duplicated in cause number 241-

1419-19. The State recognizes that together the fees constitute the Local Consolidated Fee on 

Conviction of Felony and concedes they were assessed in error.

The Local Consolidated Fee on Conviction of Felony applies only to defendants who are 

convicted of offenses committed on or after January 1, 2020. See Hayes v. State, No. 12-20-

00222-CR, 2021 WL 1418400, at *2 (Tex. App.—Tyler Apr. 14, 2021, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication) (citing TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 134.101 (West Supp. 2021)). 

Section 134.101 assesses an additional $105 fee for a person who is convicted of a felony. See

TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 134.101(a). That fee is to be allocated to the following specific 

accounts and funds: the clerk of the court account, the county records management and 

preservation fund, the county jury fund, the courthouse security fund, the county and district 

court technology fund, and the county specialty court account. See id. § 134.101(b).

In the instant case, the commission date for the offense is June 29, 2019. The certified 

bill of costs includes the following costs listed in Section 134.101: $40.00 Clerk of the Court; 

$4.00 County and District Court Technology Fund; $1.00 County Jury Fund; $25.00 County 

Records Management and Preservation; $25.00 County Specialty Court Account; $10.00 

Courthouse Security Fund. The sum of these costs is $105.00.

Because the offense in this case was committed before January 1, 2020, Appellant is not 

obligated to pay the “Local Consolidated Fee on Conviction of Felony.” See Hayes, 2021 WL 

1418400, at *2. Accordingly, we conclude that the judgment in trial court cause number 241-

1489-19 should be modified to remove those costs in the amount of $105.00. See TEX. R. APP. P.
5

43.2(b); Asberry, 813 S.W.2d at 529. We sustain Appellant’s second issue in cause number 241-

1489-19. 

DISPOSITION

Having sustained Appellant’s sole issue in trial court cause number 241-1419-19 and his 

first and second issues in trial court cause number 241-1489-19, we modify the trial court’s 

judgment and withdrawal order in cause number 241-1419-19 to reflect that the amount of court 

costs is $229.00, modify the trial court’s judgment and withdrawal order in cause number 241-

1489-19 to reflect that the amount of court costs is $0.00, and modify the bill of costs in each 

case to remove the time payment fee, without prejudice to it being assessed later if, more than 

thirty days after the issuance of our mandate, Appellant fails to completely pay the fine, court 

costs, or restitution he owes. We affirm the judgments as modified.

JAMES T. WORTHEN

Chief Justice

Opinion delivered October 20, 2021.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 20, 2021

NO. 12-20-00115-CR

BRYAN ANTHONY HOPE,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241-1419-19)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and the briefs filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that the judgment and 

withdrawal order of the court below should be modified and as modified, affirmed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment

and withdrawal order of the court below be modified to reflect that the amount of court costs is 

$229.00; in all other respects the judgment of the trial court is affirmed; and that this decision be 

certified to the court below for observance.

James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER , 2021

NO. 12-20-00116-CR

BRYAN ANTHONY HOPE,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241-1489-19)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and the briefs filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that the judgment and 

withdrawal order of the court below should be modified and as modified, affirmed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment

and withdrawal order of the court below be modified to reflect that the amount of court costs is 

$0.00; in all other respects the judgment of the trial court is affirmed; and that this decision be 

certified to the court below for observance.

James T. Worthen, Chief Justice. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.