NO. 12-18-00173-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

SAMUEL JEROME BROWN,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 114TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Samuel Jerome Brown appeals the trial court’s judgment incorporating an order to 

withdraw funds from his inmate trust account to pay his court costs. We modify and affirm as 

modified.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with felony assault family violence. He pleaded 

“guilty” to the offense as charged. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed Appellant 

on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of eight years. Subsequently, the 

State filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt. After a hearing, the trial court granted the 

motion and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for five years. This appeal followed. 

WITHDRAWAL ORDER

In Appellant’s sole issue, he argues that the trial court’s order to withdraw funds from his 

inmate trust account contains an incorrect amount of court costs. He contends that we should 

modify the order to reflect the correct amount. The State agrees, and so do we.

The record in this case indicates that a clerical error was made in the amount of court costs 

reflected in the withdrawal order. The order of deferred adjudication shows a court cost amount 
2

of $229.00. The final bill of costs shows an initial court cost amount of $229.00 and a balance of 

$89.00, indicating that Appellant paid part of his court costs while on community supervision. The 

judgment adjudicating guilt shows a court cost amount of $89.00. But the withdrawal order shows 

a court cost amount of $229.00.

An appellate court may reform a trial court’s judgment when it has the necessary data and 

information. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Banks v. State, 708 S.W.2d 460, 462 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1986). The judgment in this case states that the attached withdrawal order is incorporated into the 

judgment and made a part of it. Therefore, we may reform the withdrawal order because we have 

the necessary data and information to do so. See id. Because the court cost amount in the 

withdrawal order conflicts with the amount in the bill of costs and the body of the judgment, we 

conclude that we should modify the withdrawal order to reflect a court cost amount of $89.00. See 

id. Accordingly, we sustain Appellant’s sole issue.

DISPOSITION

Having sustained Appellant’s sole issue, we modify the withdrawal order in the trial court’s 

judgment to reflect a court cost amount of $89.00. We affirm the trial court’s judgment as 

modified.

GREG NEELEY

Justice

Opinion delivered January 16, 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

JANUARY 16, 2019

NO. 12-18-00173-CR

SAMUEL JEROME BROWN,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0459-17)

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 

withdrawal order in the judgment of the court below be modified to reflect a court cost amount of 

$89.00; 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.