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

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-01069-CR

DALEON DEMOND POTTS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 184th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1340949

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

Appellant Daleon Demond Potts pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a 

deadly weapon, and the trial court sentenced him to eight 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 $234 in court costs. 

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

record. 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. 

As in Johnson, it is undisputed that the record contains no bill of costs or 

any other evidence that would support the specific amount, $234, assessed in the 

judgment. See id. The clerk’s record contains a printout of a computer screen 

from the Harris County Justice Information Management System (JIMS), entitled 

“J.I.M.S. Cost Bill Assessment,” identifying $234 in court costs. The printout is 

unsigned and undated. This court has determined that an unsigned computer 

screen printout from JIMS that does not appear to have been brought to the 

attention of the trial court judge before she signed the judgment, is not an actual 

bill of costs as contemplated by article 103.001. See Jelks v. State, 397 S.W.3d 

759, 760 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. filed) (concluding that a 

computer screen printout from JIMS signed by an unidentified individual, when 

printout was not presented to the trial judge, could not be considered an 

appropriate bill of costs); Johnson, 389 S.W.3d at 517, n. 1.; Tex. Crim. Proc.

Code art. 103.001. The JIMS document does not bear a signature or a date, nor is 

there evidence in the record that it was presented to the trial court before the 

specific dollar amount was included in the judgment. Thus, the JIMS document 

cannot be considered an appropriate bill of costs. See Jelks, 397 S.W.3d at 760; 

Johnson, 389 S.W.3d at 517, n. 1. No other evidence in the record supports the 

specific dollar amount assigned as court costs. See id.

The State argues that there are numerous provisions in the Texas Code of 
3

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 $234.

1

 Therefore, the State maintains, the evidence is sufficient to support 

the $234 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. 

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 

 

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.
4

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).