## In t he Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 22

- 00172

- CR

DEVEN DES H ON ROSSER , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court Red River County, Texas Trial Court No. CR03258

Be f ore Stevens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

After Deven Des h on Rosser’s community supervision was revoked, the trial court
sentenced him to two years ’ imprisonment for the offense of endan ge r ing a child 1 and ten years ’
imprisonment for the offense of family violence assault. 2 The cases were tried together and have
been appealed and briefed separately

. Here, Rosser appeals from his revocation for endangering a child. 3 He contends (1) t ha t
the judgment revoking his community supervision should be modified to reflect that the two
sentences were to be served concurrently and (2) that the judgment’s assessment of a $100.00
reimbursement fee is not supported by the record. Be cause we fi nd R os s e r’s points of error to be

without merit, w e affirm the trial court’s judgment revoking community supervision.

I. Background
In February 2022, pursuant to a plea

- bargain agreement, Rosser pled guilty to
endangering a child and family violen c e as sault. As to the offense of endangering a child, the

trial court sentenced him to two years ’ confinement , s uspended that sentence, and then placed
him on five years ’ community supervision. As to t he o f fense of family violence assault, the trial

court sentenced h im to ten years ’ imprisonment, s uspended that sentenc e, and pla ced him on ten

years ’ community supervision

. In each case, he was assessed a reimbursement fe e o f $75 .00

.

1 T E X

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 2 2.041 (Supp.)

.

2 T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 22.01 (Supp.)

.

3 Rosser appe a ls from his revocati on f o r the offense of family violence assault in companion cause number 06

- 22

- 00173

- CR, also decided this day.3

In June 2022, the State filed a motion to revoke Rosser’s community supervision,

alle gi ng that Rosser violated the terms and conditions of community supervision by (1) fa iling to
report hi s change of address to his community supervision o f fi cer, (2) committ ing aggravated
assault with a deadly weapon, (3) committ ing assault with bodily inju ry , (4) committ ing family
violence assault, and (5) committ ing the offense of unlawfully carrying a weapon as a convicted

felon. Rosser entered a p le a of “ no t true” to each of the State’s revocation allegations. After a
hearing, the trial court found gro un ds (1), (3), (4), and (5) to be true and revoked Rosser’s
community sup ervision. As to the offense of endangering a child, the court sentenced Ro ss er to

tw o years in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) and

assessed h im a reimbursement fee of $100.00, and as to the offense of f amily vio lence ass ault,
the court sentenced Rosser to ten years in the In stitutional Di vision o f the T DCJ and assessed
him a reimbursement fee of $100.00. The trial court orally announced that t he sent ences would

run conc urrently.

II. The Sentences Run Concurrently
In his first issue, Rosser asserts that the judgment should be modified t o refl ec t that the

two sentences he received were to be served concurrently. 4

G enerally, “where the sen t e nce is silent as to any order of cumulation of sentences or
there is an improper order of cumulation[,] the sentence will automaticall y run concur re ntly w it h

4 The State conten ds that t his issue was not p reserved for our review

. However, this Court has the autho rity to modify a judgment “ to make t he recor d s peak the truth when the matter has been called to [ our ] attention by any

source. ” French v. State , 830 S.W.2 d 607, 609 (T ex. Crim. A pp. 1992). “ Our aut hority to reform incorre ct judgments is not dependent on the re quest of any party, nor does it turn o n a question of whether a party has or has not objected in trial court; we may act sua sponte and may have a dut y to do so. ” Rhoten v. State , 299 S.W.3d 3 49, 356 (Tex. App.

— Texark ana 2009 , no pet. ).4

any o ther outstanding sentence.” Ex parte Hernandez , 758 S.W.2d 594, 596 (Tex. Crim. App.
1988) ( orig. proceeding) (c iting T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 42.08); see Moore v. State , 371 S.W.3d 221, 228 (Tex. Crim. App . 2012) (“We have long he ld that ‘[ w]here the court does

not order that two or more sentences in different prosecutions shall be cumu la tive as permitted
by Article 42.08 . . . , the terms of imprisonment automatically run concurrently .’” (alteration in
original) (quot ing Ex parte R eynold s , 462 S. W.2d 605, 606 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970) (orig.
proceeding))).
Here, the trial co urt orally p r onounced
, “ T hese sentences will run con current.” The
judgment in this case states
, “THIS SENTENCE SHALL RUN CONCURRENTL Y WITH

. ”

Be ca use the j ud gment r eflect s that the sentence is to be served concurrently, the judgme nt
corresponds to the trial court’s o r al pronouncemen t , an d the sen tences run concurrent ly

. Therefore, this point of error is without merit.

III. Reimb ursement Fee

In his final po in t of er ror, Rosser contends that th e “judgment included reimbursement

fe es of $100, which was not supported b y the prior probation judgment or the bill of costs.”

“ [ W ] e revie w the assessment of court costs on appeal to de termine if t here is a basis f or

the co st , not to determine if ther e was sufficient evidence off ered at trial to prove each cost

. . . . ”

J o hnson v. State , 423 S.W.3d 385, 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Here, the judgment revoki n g communi ty supervision asse ssed a reimb ursement fee of
$ 100 .00

. T he amended bill of costs reflects the following reimbur semen t fees:5

Noti c e to appear/arrest w/o war r a nt $ 5. 00 (x6) $30.00
Executing Capias, Warrant, etc

. $ 5 0.00 (x2) $ 100. 00

Summon i ng Witnes s $ 5.00 (x4) $20.00
Taking and A pproving a bond $ 10. 00 $10.0 0

Commitment fee $5 .00 (x2) $10.00

Release Fee $ 5.00 $5.00

The fees listed tot al $175.00. Therefore, charges contained in the amended bill of costs do

support the judgm ent’s imposition of $100 .00 in reimbur sement fees
, and Ros ser ’ s argume nt is

wit hout merit

. Having found Rosser’s two points of error to be without merit
, we affirm the trial c ourt’s
judgment.

Charles van Cle ef Justice

Date Submitted : June 6, 2023 Date Decided: June 21 , 202 3

Do Not Pu blish