MODIFY and AFFIRM; November 18, 2013.

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01642-CR

No. 05-12-01643-CR

ELLIS EDWARD JAMES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F12-16679-Y, F12-16678-Y

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices O’Neill, Lang-Miers, and Evans

Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers

Ellis Edward James appeals his two convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm by a 

felon. After finding him guilty and two enhancement paragraphs true, the jury assessed

punishment at thirty-three years’ imprisonment. The trial court’s judgments also include orders

that appellant pay $264 in court costs. In four issues, appellant contends the trial court erred by 

ordering him to pay court costs and the judgments should be modified to show he pleaded true to 

two enhancement paragraphs and the jury found them true. We modify the trial court’s 

judgments and affirm as modified.
-2-

COURT COSTS

In his first two issues, appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to support the trial 

court’s judgment in each case that appellant pay $264 in court costs because the clerk’s records

do not contain bills of costs. The State responds that the trial court did not err in assessing court 

costs in each case.

If a criminal action is appealed, “an officer of the court shall certify and sign a bill of 

costs stating the costs that have been accrued and send the bill of costs to the court to which the 

action or proceeding is . . . appealed.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 103.006 (West 2006). 

Costs may not be collected from the person charged with the costs until a written bill, containing 

the items of cost, is produced and signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer 

entitled to receive payment for the cost. Id. art. 103.001.

The clerk’s record in these cases initially did not contain a copy of the bill of costs. We, 

however, ordered the Dallas County District Clerk to file supplemental records containing 

certified bills of costs associated with each case, and the clerk did so. See TEX. R. APP. P.

34.5(c)(1) (rules of appellate procedure allow supplementation of clerk’s record if relevant items 

has been omitted). Appellant’s complaints that the evidence is insufficient to support the 

imposition of costs because the clerk’s records did not contain bills of costs are now moot. See 

Coronel v. State, No. 05-12-00493-CR, 2013 WL 3874446, at *4 (Tex. App.––Dallas July 29, 

2013, no pet. h.); Franklin v. State, 402 S.W.3d 894, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.). We 

overrule his first and second issue.

In response to the Court’s order requiring supplementation of the records, appellant filed 

an objection that the bills of costs in the supplemental records are not “proper bill[s] of costs” 
-3-

and the bills of costs were not filed in the trial court or brought to the trial court’s attention 

before costs were entered into the judgments. We reject both arguments.

Appellant first contends that the bills of costs in the records are not “proper bill[s] of 

costs” because they are “unsigned, unsworn computer printout[s].” Appellant acknowledges the 

district clerk has certified that the documents constitute costs that have accrued to date,” but says 

this does not “set out the costs as required by statute.” While the code of criminal procedure 

requires a record to be kept, the code is silent on the form of such a record except to the extent it 

must be certified and signed “by the officer who charged the costs or the officer who is entitled 

to receive payment for the cost.” See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 103.001, .006; Coronel, 

2013 WL 3874446, at *4.

Here, in each case, the district clerk provided a “Bill of Costs Certification” containing 

the costs that have accrued to date in the respective case, and the documents are certified and 

signed by the district clerk. Because the documents meet the mandate of the code of criminal 

procedure, we conclude appellant’s objection that the bills of costs are not “proper” lacks merit. 

See Coronel, 2013 WL 3874446, at *4.

Appellant further argues there is no indication the bills of costs were filed in the trial 

court or brought to the trial court’s attention before costs were entered in the judgments. 

Nothing in the code of criminal procedure or the statutes addressing the assessment of costs 

against defendants requires that a bill of costs be presented to the trial court at any time before 

judgment. See id. at *5.

Article 42.16 provides that the judgment shall “adjudge the costs against the defendant, 

and order the collection thereof as in other cases.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.16 

(West 2006). Court costs, as reflected in a certified bill of costs, are not part of the sentence, do 
-4-

not alter the range of punishment, and need not be orally pronounced or incorporated by 

reference in the judgment to be effective. Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759, 766 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2011); Coronel, 2013 WL 3874446, at *5. The code of criminal procedure does not require 

the bill of costs be filed at the time the trial court signs the judgment of conviction; it only 

requires a bill of costs be produced if a criminal case is appealed or costs are collected. See 

Coronel, 2003 WL 3874446, at *5. Because there is no requirement that the costs be presented 

to the trial court, we conclude appellant’s second objection to the supplemented record lacks 

merit. See id. We overrule appellant’s objection to the supplemented record.

MODIFY JUDGMENTS

In his third and fourth issues, appellant asks us to modify the judgments to show he 

pleaded true to the two enhancement paragraphs in each case and the jury found the 

enhancement paragraphs to be true. The State agrees that the judgments should be modified as 

appellant requests.

The records show that in each case, appellant pleaded true to two enhancement 

paragraphs during the punishment phase. The jury found the two enhancement paragraphs true

and assessed punishment in each case within the enhanced range. The judgments, however, recite 

"N/A" for the plea and findings on the second enhancement paragraph. We sustain appellant’s 

third and fourth issue. We modify the judgments to show appellant pleaded true to two 

enhancement paragraphs and the jury found the enhancement paragraphs true. See TEX. R. APP. 

P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 

S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref d).

We further note the judgment in each case incorrectly recites the statute of the offense for 

which appellant was convicted. Appellant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by 
-5-

a felon pursuant to section 46.04 of the penal code. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.04(a) 

(West 2011). The judgments, however, incorrectly identify the statute as “46.05 Penal Code.” 

We modify each judgment to show the statute for the offense is “46.04 Penal Code.” See TEX. 

R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley, 865 S.W.2d at 27–28; Asberry, 813 S.W.2d at 529–30.

As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

121642F.U05

/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

JUSTICE
-6-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

ELLIS EDWARD JAMES, Appellant 

No. 05-12-01642-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the Criminal District Court

No. 7 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 

F12-16679-Y).

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers, 

Justices O’Neill and Evans participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as 

follows:

The section entitled “Statute for Offense” is modified to show “46.04 Penal Code.”

The section entitled “Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” is modified to show 

“True.”

The section entitled “Findings on 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” is modified to 

show “True.

As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment entered November 18, 2013.

/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

JUSTICE
-7-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

ELLIS EDWARD JAMES, Appellant 

No. 05-12-01643-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the Criminal District Court

No. 7 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 

F12-16678-Y).

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers, 

Justices O’Neill and Evans participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as 

follows:

The section entitled “Statute for Offense” is modified to show “46.04 Penal Code.”

The section entitled “Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” is modified to show 

“True.”

The section entitled “Findings on 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” is modified to 

show “True.

As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment entered November 18, 2013.

/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

JUSTICE