Opinion filed September 3, 2020

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals _______________

Nos. 11-19-00400-CR & 11-19-00401-CR

_______________

CHESTER ARTHER HALL JR., Appellant

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 441st District Court 

Midland County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. 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 no. CR48153) and the third-degree 

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

no. CR49744). In each cause, the 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 supervision 
2

and proceed with an adjudication of guilt in each cause. The trial court held a hearing 

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 and 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 adjudicating 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 complained-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 orders.

The State has filed a brief in each appeal 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 trial court did not mention a fine for 

either offense. The trial court was required to pronounce the sentence in Appellant’s 

presence. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. 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 oral 
3

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 distinction 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 

sentence are deferred). Because the trial court did not mention any fine when it 

orally pronounced Appellant’s sentences 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 bills 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 indicate 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 CRIM.

PROC. 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 funds, 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. 

CR49744, 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. As modified, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. 

JOHN M. BAILEY

CHIEF JUSTICE

September 3, 2020

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. 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.