## 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 114T H

JUDICIAL DISTRICT CO URT

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.

B ACKGROUND

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

“guilty” to the offense as charged. The trial court de ferred 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 ass essed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for five years. This appeal followed.

W ITHDRAWAL O RDER

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 amount2

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

judg ment 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. T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 nec essary 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 cos t amount of $89.00. See

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

D ISPOSITION

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

.

G REG N EELEY

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 affirme d ; 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.