IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-12-00204-CR

BRIAN COOK,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court No. FISC-11-20887

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In two issues, appellant, Brian Thomas Cook, challenges the amount of court 

costs assessed by the trial court. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 30, 2011, appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated 

sexual assault of a child, a first-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021 (West 

Supp. 2012). Appellant subsequently entered an open plea of guilty to the charged 

offense. The trial court accepted appellant’s plea and sentenced him to twelve years’ 
Cook v. State Page 2

incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice 

with no fine. In addition, the trial court ordered that appellant pay $599.00 in court 

costs. An order to withdraw funds from appellant’s inmate account was incorporated 

in the judgment. This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

In his brief, appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the 

amount of court costs assessed by the trial court in this case because there was no bill of 

costs prepared, though required by article 103.001 of the Texas Code of Criminal 

Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 103.001 (West 2006).

Though not available to counsel at the time appellant’s brief was filed, the Texas 

Court of Criminal Appeals has recently held that a bill of costs need not be included in 

the record to support the assessment of mandatory or statutorily-authorized court costs. 

Johnson v. State, No. PD-0193-13, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 240, at 

**25-26 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 26, 2014); see Cardenas v. State, No. PD-0733-13, ___ S.W.3d 

___, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 236, at *3 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 26, 2014). Thus, if the 

court costs in this case are mandatory or authorized by statute, then a bill of costs was 

not required to be included in the record. 

In the instant case, a bill of costs was not originally included in the record. 

However, after abating and remanding this proceeding, the trial-court clerk created a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing an itemized bill of costs documenting the costs 

incurred from August 30, 2011 to May 24, 2013. See Johnson, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. 

LEXIS 240, at **15-16 (concluding that a bill of costs can be prepared and added to the 
Cook v. State Page 3

record via a supplemental clerk’s record); see also Jones v. State, No. 06-12-00107-CR, 2013 

Tex. App. LEXIS 2832, at *16 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Mar. 19, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., 

not designated for publication). As shown in the table below, the complained-of costs 

are mandated by statute:

Fee Assessed Amount Statutory Authority

Child Abuse Prevention 

Fund/Off. After 9/01/05

$100 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 102.0186(a)(1) 

(West Supp. 2013).

Consolidated Court Cost $133 TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE 

ANN. § 133.102(a)(1) 

(West Supp. 2013).

District Clerk Filing Fee $40 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 102.005(a) 

(West 2006).

Records Management & 

Preservation Fee

$25 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 102.005(f) 

(West 2006).

Courthouse Security Fee $5 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 102.017(a) 

(West Supp. 2013).

Arrest Fee $5 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 102.011(a)(1) 

(West Supp. 2013).

Indigent Legal Services $2 TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE 

ANN. § 133.107(a) (West 

Supp. 2013).

Judicial Support Fee: Criminal $4 TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE 

ANN. § 133.105(a) (West 

2008).

Jury Reimbursement $6 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 102.0045(a) 

(West Supp. 2013).

Time Payment Fee $25 TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE 

ANN. § 133.103(a) (West 

Supp. 2013).

District Technology Fee $4 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 102.0169(a) 

(West Supp. 2013).

DNA Fee on Sex-Related After $250 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
Cook v. State Page 4

9/1/2001 ANN. art. 102.020(a)(1) 

(West Supp. 2013).

Therefore, because the complained-of costs contained in the bill of costs are 

mandated by statute, we reject appellant’s complaints about the absence of a bill of costs 

in the record. See Johnson, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 240, at **25-26; Cardenas, 2014 

Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 236, at *3; Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552, 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2010) (stating that we review the sufficiency of the evidence to support the award of 

costs by viewing all record evidence in the light most favorable to the award); see also 

Thomas v. State, No. 01-12-00487-CR, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 2989, at **9-

13 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 21, 2013, no pet.) (concluding that sufficient 

evidence supports the judgment awarding costs that are mandated by statute). We do 

note, however, that the bill of costs appears to reverse the jury-reimbursement and 

judicial-support fees. Article 102.0045 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states 

that a person convicted of an offense shall pay, as court costs, $4 for jury 

reimbursement. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.0045. On the other hand, section 

133.105(a) of the Texas Local Government Code provides that a person convicted of an 

offense shall pay, as court costs, $6 for “court-related purposes for the support of the 

judiciary.” TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 133.105(a). Though the fee assessments for 

these line items are incorrect, we recognize that the net result is the same. As such, any 

error associated with the bill of costs is harmless. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we 

overrule both of appellant’s issues on appeal.

III. CONCLUSION
Cook v. State Page 5

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed March 13, 2014

Do not publish

[CR25]