NO. 12-19-00263-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JUAN LAMONT YOUNG, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 114TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Juan Lamont Young appeals his conviction for delivery of a controlled substance. In a 

single issue, Appellant contends the imposition of certain court costs is not supported by the record. 

We modify and affirm as modified.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with manufacture or delivery of a controlled 

substance in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams.1 In an open plea, Appellant 

pleaded “guilty,” and the trial court ultimately sentenced him to forty years imprisonment. This 

appeal followed.

COURT COSTS

In his sole issue, Appellant argues that the trial court erred by imposing court costs that 

were not supported by the bill of costs and by ordering the court costs to be withdrawn from his 

inmate trust account.

Standard of Review and Applicable Law

A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting court costs is reviewable on direct 

appeal in a criminal case. See Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W .3d 759, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). 

 1 See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(a), (d) (West 2017).
2

We measure sufficiency by reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the award. Mayer 

v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552, 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Cardenas v. State, 403 S.W.3d 377, 382 

(Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2013), aff’d, 423 S.W.3d 396 (Tex. 2014). Requiring a convicted 

defendant to pay court costs does not alter the range of punishment, is authorized by statute, and 

is generally not conditioned on a defendant’s ability to pay. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 

42.16 (West 2018); Armstrong, 340 S.W.3d at 767; see also Johnson v. State, 405 S.W.3d 350, 

353 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2013, no pet.).

Analysis

The judgment adjudicating guilt and assessing $294 in court costs also includes a document 

identified as “Attachment A Order to Withdraw Funds,” which states that Appellant incurred 

“[c]ourt costs, fees, and/or fines and/or restitution” in the amount of $294.

Appellant contends, and the State concedes, that the trial court’s judgment and withholding 

order should be modified to reflect court costs in the amount of $289. We have reviewed the items 

in the bill of costs, and all listed costs and fees are authorized by statute. See, e.g., Ireland v. State, 

No. 03-14-00616-CR, 2015 WL 4914982, at *3 n.3 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 12, 2015, no pet.) 

(mem. op., not designated for publication) (identifying statutory sources for assessment of fees in 

bill of costs). The bill of costs reflects that the $5.00 e-filing fee has been paid in full and lists a 

balance due of $289. Because some costs have already been paid, the evidence is insufficient to 

support the trial court’s assessment of $294 in court costs as reflected in its judgment adjudicating 

guilt and withholding order. See Lack v. State, No. 12-13-00052-CR, 2013 WL 3967698, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Tyler July 31, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (modifying 

judgment to reflect costs actually owed); see, e.g., Muller v. State, No. 12–12–00269–CR, 2013 

WL 3243522, at * 2–3 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 25, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication) (modifying judgment to reflect payment of properly assessed costs); Johns v. State,

Nos. 07–10–0303–CR, 07–10–0304–CR, 2011 WL 832837, at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Mar. 10, 

2011, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated publication) (modifying judgment to reflect that 

properly assessed costs were paid in full). The evidence is sufficient, however, to support the 

imposition of $289 in court costs. Accordingly, we sustain Appellant’s sole issue on appeal.
3

DISPOSITION

Having sustained Appellant’s sole issue, we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect 

that the amount of court costs is $289. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b). We also modify Attachment 

A to delete the assessment of $294 and to state that the total amount of “[c]ourt costs, fees and/or 

fines and/or restitution” is $289. See Ballinger v. State, 405 S.W.3d 346, 350 (Tex. App.—Tyler 

2013, no pet.). We affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b).

GREG NEELEY

Justice

Opinion delivered December 31, 2019.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

DECEMBER 31, 2019

NO. 12-19-00263-CR

JUAN LAMONT YOUNG,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0455-18)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record and the briefs 

filed herein, and the same being inspected, it is the opinion of the Court that the judgment of the 

trial court below should be modified and, as modified, affirmed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment 

of the court below be modified to reflect that the amount of court costs is $289; and modify

Attachment A to delete the assessment of $294 and to state that the total amount of “[c]ourt costs,

fees and/or fines and/or restitution” is $289; and as modified, the trial court’s judgment is 

affirmed; and that this decision be certified to the trial court below for observance.

Greg Neeley, Justice. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.