# In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 20

- 00043

- CR

KEDRON DEQUANTIS WHITE , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court Lamar County, Texas Trial Court No. 27578

Befor e Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

### 2 

## ME MORANDUM OPINION After pleading guilty to burglary of a habitation 1 

### under a plea agreement, Kedron Dequantis White was sentenced to ten years ’ incarcerat ion

— the senten ce suspended in favor of eight years ’ community supervision

— and was fined $500.00. On February 19, 2020, the trial court entered a judgment revoking White ’ s community supervision and sentencing him to ten
years ’ incarceration. The judgment of revocation reflected the imposition of a $500.00 fine, court costs of $283.00, and “ reimbursement fees ” of $510.00. In his sole point of error on appeal, White complains that the trial court erred in assessin g reimbursement fees of $510.00, as the statute in effect at the time of White ’ s conviction did not designate court costs as reimbursement fees. White concedes that the reimbursement fee is presumably misnamed and should have been labelled court costs. T he State agrees, explaining that, during its 86 th Regular Session, the Texas Legislature comprehensively revised the statutory array of criminal court costs and fees imposed on conviction ( the Act ). See generally Act of May 23, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., ch . 1352, 2019 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 3982 (eff

. Jan

. 1,
20 20). Yet, “ [e] xcept as otherwise provided by ” the Act, “ the changes in the law made by ” the
Act “ apply only to a cost, fee, or fine on conviction for an offense committed on or after the effective d ate of

” the Act , that is January 1, 2020 . An offense com mitt ed bef ore the Act ’ s effective date “ is governed by the law in effect on the date the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. ” Act of May 23, 2019, 86 th Leg., R.S., c h. 1352, § 5.01, 2019 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 3982 , 4035

– 36.

1 See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 30.02(c)(2).

### 3

The offens e in this case occurred August 5, 2017. Consequently, th e imposition of court costs was governed by the law in effect on that date. The bill of costs reflects court costs of $793.00 2 

### and supports a judgment for costs in that amount under the law in effect on the offense date. 3 

### Five hundred and ten dollars of these costs were, however, improperly labelled in the judgment as reimbursement fees rather than as court costs. 4

2 This figure does not include the $500.00 fine whic h was listed in the bill of costs.

3 The bill of costs includes the followin g c harges:

• Attorney fees of $450.00. This charge is properly assessed as court costs under certain circumstances under the prior law. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 26.05( g).
• Cl erk’s fee of $40.00. This charge is properly assessed as court costs u nde r the prior law. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 102.005(a).
• Consolidated Court Costs Fee of $133.00. This char ge is properly assessed as court costs under the prior law

. See T EX
. L OCAL G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 133.102.
• District Court Technology Fee of $4.00. This charge is properly assessed as court costs under the prior law. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. R OC
. A NN . art. 102.0 169.
• DNA Testing F ee of $34.00. This charge is properly asses sed as court costs under the prior law. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. ar t. 102.020.
• E

- Filing Fee of $5.00. This charge is properly assessed as court costs under the prior law. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 51.851.
• Indigent Defense Fee of $2.00. T his ch arge is properly assessed as court costs under the prior law. See T EX
. L O CAL G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 133.107.
• Ju dicial Support Fee of $0 .60. This charge is properly assessed as court costs under the prior law. See T EX
. L OCAL G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 133.105.
• J udicia l Support Fee of $5.40. This charge is properly assessed as court cos ts under the prior law. See T EX
. L OCAL G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 133.105.
• Jury Reimbursement F ee of $4.00. This charge is properly assessed as court costs under the prior law. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM . P ROC
. A NN
. art. 102.0045(a).
• Records Management Fee

– DC of $2.50. T his charge is properly assessed as cour t costs under the prior law. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 102.005.
• Records Management & Preservation Fee

– Co. of $22.50. This charg e is properly assessed as court costs under the prior law. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 102.005

. • Security Services Fee of $5.00. This charge is properly assessed as court costs under the prior law. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 102.0 17.
• Se rving Capias/Warrant F ee of $50.00. This charge is properly assessed as co urt costs under the prior law. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 102.011.
• Taking and Approving Bond (SF

- Bond) F ee of $10.00. This charge is properly assessed as court co sts un der the prior law. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 102.011.
• County Tim e P ayment Fee of $12.50. This charge is properly assessed as court costs under the prior law. See T EX
. L OCAL G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 133.103.

### 4

This Court is authorized to modify the judgment to make the r ecord speak the truth when such an error has been brought to our attention by a ny source. T EX


### . R. A PP


### . P . 43.2(b); French v.
State , 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). “ Our authority to reform incorrect judgments is not dependent on the request o f any party, nor does it turn on a question of whether a party has or has not o bjected in trial court; we may act sua sponte and may have a duty to do

so. ” Rhoten v. State , 299 S.W.3d 349, 356 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2009, no pet.) (citing Asberry v. State , 813 S. W.2d 526, 531 ( Tex. App.

— Dallas 1991, pet. ref ’ d)); see French , 830
S.W.2 d at 609. We, therefore, modify the judgment to reflect court costs in the amount of $793.00 and to delete the phrase “ Reimbursement Fees ” from the judgment.
W e affirm the t rial c ourt ’ s judgment , as modified

.

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Ju stice Date Submitted: August 19, 2020 Date Decided: October 20 , 2020 Do Not Publish

• State Time Payment Fee of $12.50. Th is cha rge is properly assessed as court costs under the prior law. See T EX
. L OCA L G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 133.103.

4 The judgment of conviction placing Smith on community supervision reflects court costs and attorney fees of $793.00.