Opinion filed September 3 , 2020



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ ________ __ No s . 11

- 19

- 00 400

- CR & 11

- 19

- 00401

- CR

_____ ____ _

____ _
CHESTER ARTHER HALL JR. , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 44 1st District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . CR48153 & CR49744

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant, Chester Arther Hall Jr. , originally pleaded guilty to the state jail felony offense of possession of marihuana ( cause n o. CR48153) and the third

- degree felony offense of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine , (cause

no. CR49744). In each cause, t he trial court deferred a finding of guilt , placed Appellant on community supervision for four years , and assessed a fine of $500

. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision2 and proceed with an adjudicat ion of guilt in each ca u se. The trial court held a heari ng on the State ’ s motions to adjudicate, found the State ’ s allegations to be true, revoked Appellant ’ s community supervision, and adjudicated Appellant guilty of the charged
offenses. The trial court assessed Appellant ’ s punishment in cause no. CR48153 at confinement in a state jail facility for twelve months

. In cause no. CR49744, the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of four years. We modify an d affirm. Analysis
In his sole issue in each appeal , Appellant complains of the inclusion of a $500 fine in the bill of cost. In cause no. CR49744, he additionally complains of the inclusion of $1,800 in attorney’s fees in the bill of cost. We note that the judgments revoking Appellant’s community supervision and ad judicating his guilt contain language requiring Appellant to pay “all unpaid court costs, attorney fees, supervision fees, and all court costs and attorney’s fees associated with the prosecution of the State’s motion to revoke.” We also note that the comp lained

- of $500 fines and the $1,800 in attorney’s fees were included in the trial court’s orders to withdraw funds from Appellant’s inmate trust account and that Appellant has
asked this court to reform those order s

. The State has filed a brief in each app eal in which it concedes that Appellant
is correct and that it was error for the bill of cost in CR48153 and CR49744 to include a fine of $500. When the trial court assessed Appellant ’ s punishment and orally pronounced the sentence in open court, the tria l court did not mention a fine for
either offense

. The trial court was required to pronounce the sentence in Appellant ’ s
presence. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 42.03 (West Supp. 2019 ); Taylor v.
State , 131 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). When there is a variation between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment, the oral3 pronouncement controls. Coffey v. State , 979 S.W.2d 326, 328

– 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); see also Taylor , 131 S.W.3d at 500

– 02 (explaining the d istinction between regular community supervision, in which sentence is imposed but suspended when a defendant is placed on community supervision, and deferred

- adjudication community supervision, in which the adjudication of guilt and the imposition of

sent ence are deferred). Because the trial court did not mention any fine when it orally pronounced Appellant ’ s sentence s and because we have the necessary
information for reformation in both causes before this court, we modify the trial court’s judgments , the orders to withdraw funds, and the bill s of cost to delete the assessment of any fine in these causes

. See Taylor , 131 S.W.3d at 502; Cerna v.
State , No. 11

- 14

- 00363

- CR, 2015 WL 3918259, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Eastland June 25, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Second, in CR49744 , the State concedes that it was also error to require Appellant to pay the fees of his court

- appointed attorney. We agree. Appellant was determined to be indigent, and there is nothing in the record to i ndicate that he is no longer indigent or that the trial court made any determination that Appellant had
financial resources to pay for the costs of his court

- appointed attorney. See C RIM

. P ROC

. art. 26.05(g)

. When the trial court erroneously includes fees as court costs, we should modify the trial court ’ s judgment to remove the improperly assessed fees.
See Cates v. State , 402 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). We therefore modify the judgment of the trial court, the order to withdraw f unds, and the bill of

cost to delete any requirement that Appellant pay $1,800 for court

- appointed attorney’s fees. See id. This Court’s Ruling
We sustain Appellant’s sole issue in these appeals. In cause no. CR48153, we modify the judgment of the trial court, the order to withdraw funds, and the bill of

cost to delete the assessment of the $500 fine ; the amount of the fine shall be $0.00
,4 which would leave costs remaining due from Appellant at $536.50 . In cause no.
CR 49744, we modify the judgment of the trial court, the order to withdraw funds,
and the bill of cost to delete the assessment of the fine in the amount of $500 and the imposition of court

- appointed attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,800; the amount
of each shall be $0.00, which would leave costs remaining due from Appellant at $630.50. A s modified , we affirm t he judgments of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE

September 3 , 2020 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J. 1
Willson, J., not participating.

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.