Opinion issued July 29, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-12-01121-CR

———————————

KENNETH JAMES HUDSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 179th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1294461

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Kenneth James Hudson was charged with aggravated robbery 

with a deadly weapon for approaching a woman with a knife and stealing her car.

A jury found Hudson guilty and assessed his punishment at 25 years in prison. On 

appeal, Hudson raises two issues: (1) his trial counsel rendered ineffective 
2

assistance, and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the costs assessed in 

the judgment. We affirm. 

Background

During the punishment phase, the trial court admitted into evidence four

prior judgments of conviction, along with a stipulation detailing Hudson’s criminal 

history. One of those judgments, the 2009 judgment, indicated that as part of a 

plea bargain, the State moved “to reduce charge from a 1st degree felony to a state 

jail felony,” and, as a result, Hudson was convicted of the offense of theft against a

person.

In the State’s closing argument in punishment, the prosecutor asked for a 

sentence of 50 years. The prosecutor argued that a punishment in the middle of the 

5–99 year range was justified based on Hudson’s criminal history, and she 

emphasized that Hudson did not deserve another second chance. The prosecutor

specifically argued that in a previous case, Hudson initially had been charged with 

a first degree felony, but the State gave Hudson a second chance and reduced it to a 

state jail felony. 

The jury sentenced Hudson to 25 years. On November 28, 2012, the trial 

court entered judgment and assessed court costs in the amount of $329.00. Hudson 

appealed, and the trial court later increased the amount of court costs assessed to 

$374.00, by a judgment nunc pro tunc entered on March 12, 2012. 
3

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

In his first issue, Hudson contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective 

assistance because counsel “failed to object to a judgment which included language 

indicating [he] was originally charged with a greater offense than the offense for 

which [he] was convicted.” 

A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

Both the federal and state constitutions guarantee an accused the right to 

have the assistance of counsel. See U.S. CONST. amend. VI; TEX. CONST. art. I, 

§ 10; TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.051 (West Supp. 2013). The right to 

counsel includes the right to reasonably effective assistance of counsel. See 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686–87, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2063–64 (1984); 

Ex parte Gonzales, 945 S.W.2d 830, 835 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Both state and 

federal claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are evaluated under the two 

prong analysis of Strickland. Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 812 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1999). The first prong requires the appellant to demonstrate that counsel’s 

performance was deficient, meaning that counsel made errors so serious that he 

was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. 

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064. The second prong requires the 

appellant to show that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Id. 

To establish prejudice, the appellant must prove there is a reasonable probability 
4

that but for counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would 

have been different. Jackson v. State, 973 S.W.2d 954, 956 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1998). 

There is a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct fell within the wide 

range of reasonable professional assistance. Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 813; Jackson 

v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). On direct appeal, a 

reviewing court will rarely be able to fairly evaluate the merits of an ineffectiveassistance claim because the record on direct appeal is usually undeveloped and 

inadequately reflective of the reasons for defense counsel’s actions at trial. Mata v. 

State, 226 S.W.3d 425, 430 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The lack of a clear record 

usually will prevent the appellant from meeting the first prong of Strickland, as the 

reasonableness of counsel’s choices and actions during trial can be proven 

deficient only through facts that do not normally appear in the appellate record. Id.

In order for an appellate court to find on direct appeal that counsel was 

ineffective, counsel’s deficiency must be affirmatively demonstrated in the trial 

record. Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137, 142 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). When the 

record is silent as to counsel’s reasons for his conduct, finding counsel ineffective 

would call for speculation by the appellate court. Stults v. State, 23 S.W.3d 198, 

208 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d). An appellate court will 

not speculate about the reasons underlying defense counsel’s decisions to find 
5

counsel ineffective. Id.; see Jackson, 877 S.W.2d at 771. If appellant does not file 

a motion for new trial or request a hearing, or if counsel does not appear at the 

hearing, an affidavit from trial counsel becomes almost vital to the success of an 

ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal. Stults, 23 S.W.3d at 208–09.

B. Analysis

Four judgments reflecting Hudson’s prior convictions were admitted during 

punishment. They showed that Hudson received: (1) a nine-month probated

sentence for the misdemeanor offense of terroristic threat in 2007, (2) a probated

sentence to the Texas Youth Division for the misdemeanor offense of theft of 

property in 2008, (3) a probated sentence to the Texas Youth Commission for 

burglary of habitation with intent to commit theft in 2008,1and (4) a two-year 

conviction for the state jail felony offense of theft from a person in 2009. Trial 

counsel did not object to the admission of any of the judgments. 

Hudson contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not 

objecting to the admission of the 2009 judgment for theft from a person, which 

said: “Terms of Plea Bargain: 2 Years State Jail. State moves to reduce charge 

from a 1st Degree Felony to a State Jail Felony 230088.” Relying on Davis v. State, 

642 S.W.2d 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982), Hudson contends that unadjudicated 

 

1 Although the judgment for the burglary of habitation conviction does not indicate 

as much, we presume it was a second degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§ 30.02(c)(2) (West 2011) (“Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense 

under this section is a felony of the second degree if committed in a habitation.”). 
6

offenses are inadmissible. Therefore, he argues, the presumption that counsel had 

a strategy and acted reasonably and professionally should not apply because no 

reasonable trial counsel would have failed to object to the 2009 judgment on the 

basis that it stated the charged but unadjudicated offense was a first degree felony. 

In Davis, the prior judgment showed that the defendant was indicted for the 

felony offense of theft of an automobile, and that the charge was reduced to 

unauthorized use of an automobile, a class A misdemeanor. Id. at 513. The Davis 

court held that it was error to admit the judgment because article 37.07 of the Code 

of Criminal Procedure prevented the State from admitting evidence of 

unadjudicated offenses. Id. at 513–14. The Davis court went on to conclude that 

the error was harmless because the State did not mention the greater charged 

offense in closing and “[t]he record does not reflect that the jury ever requested or 

received the judgment of conviction.” Id. at 514.

The version of article 37.07 in effect in 1982, when the Court of Criminal 

Appeals decided Davis, provided that the State could not admit evidence of an 

unadjudicated extraneous offense during the punishment phase. See Grunsfeld v. 

State, 843 S.W.2d 521, 526 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). But article 37.07 was 

amended in 1993, and under the new version, evidence of unadjudicated offenses

is admissible so long as the unadjudicated offense is proven beyond a reasonable 

doubt. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 37.07, § 3(a) (West Supp. 2013); 
7

Peters v. State, 31 S.W.3d 704, 715–16 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. 

ref’d) (stating that 1993 amendments to article 37.07 made evidence of 

unadjudicated extraneous offenses admissible at punishment). Accordingly, 

unadjudicated offenses are no longer categorically inadmissible, as Hudson 

contends. Moreover, the courts of appeals, including this one, have reasoned that

failure to object to an unadjudicated offense could be part of a reasonable strategy. 

See Watkins v. State, No. 10-02-042-CR, 2003 WL 21357267, at *4 (Tex. App.—

Waco June 11, 2003, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) 

(presuming trial counsel’s failure to object to appellant’s criminal history report

including unadjudicated offenses was reasonable because record was silent as to 

why he did not object); Smith v. State, No. 01-95-01448-CR, 1996 WL 711254, at 

*2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 12, 1996, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication) (decision not to object to evidence of unadjudicated 

offense could be well-considered trial strategy if counsel knew that the allegations 

were true, that the State could prove them, and attorney did not want to “provoke 

the State into putting on witnesses whose testimony could be terribly damning to 

his client”); Heiman v. State, 923 S.W.2d 622, 626–27 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] 1995, pet. ref’d) (holding that failure to object to inadmissible unadjudicated 

extraneous offense testimony, in the absence of record showing counsel’s reasons 
8

for not doing so, did not rise to level of ineffective assistance because failure to 

object could have been part of counsel’s sound and plausible trial strategy). 

Because Hudson has neither shown that his trial counsel’s actions at trial 

were “so outrageous that no reasonable competent trial attorney would have done 

likewise,” and the record is silent as to trial counsel’s strategy, we presume 

counsel’s conduct was reasonable and professional. See Mata, 226 S.W.3d at 433; 

see also Stults, 23 S.W.3d at 208; Jackson, 877 S.W.2d at 771. Accordingly, we 

hold that Hudson failed to satisfy the first prong of Strickland. 

We overrule Hudson’s first issue. 

Court Costs

In his second issue, Hudson argues that the evidence is insufficient to 

support the assessment of costs in the amount of $329.00 or $374.00 and that the 

trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment nunc pro tunc increasing the 

amount of costs assessed from $329.00 to $374.00. We address the jurisdictional

issue first.

Hudson contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment 

nunc pro tunc. We agree. “Once the record has been filed in the appellate court, 

all further proceedings in the trial court—except as provided otherwise by law or 

by these rules—will be suspended until the trial court receives the appellate-court 

mandate.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(g). 
9

Here, the trial court signed the judgment assessing court costs in the amount 

of $329.00 on November 28, 2012. Hudson filed a notice of appeal on the same 

date. The reporter’s record was filed in this court on March 3, 2013, and the 

clerk’s record was filed on March 11, 2013. A visiting judge signed the purported 

judgment nunc pro tunc assessing costs in the amount of $374.00 on March 12, 

2013. The next day, March 13, 2013, the district clerk filed a supplemental record

containing the order on entry of judgment nunc pro tunc and the original and 

revised judgments, together with an itemized J.I.M.S. cost bill assessment, which 

reflected that Hudson was assessed court costs in the amount of $374.00. The 

purported judgment nunc pro tunc was entered after Hudson appealed and after the 

record had been filed in the appellate court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(g). 

Accordingly, we hold that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a nunc pro 

tunc judgment on March 12, 2013. See TEX. R. APP. P. 23.1, 25.2(g); Green v. 

State, 906 S.W.2d 937, 939 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (“[O]nce the trial record has 

been filed with the Court of Appeals or this Court, the trial court no longer has 

jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.”); State v. Gutierrez, 143 S.W.3d 829, 831 (Tex. 

App.—Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.) (“The filing of the appellate record . . . severs 

the trial court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.”); cf. Meineke v. State, 171 

S.W.3d 551, 558 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d) (holding that 

filing of notice of appeal did not deprive trial court of jurisdiction when appellate 
10

record had not yet been filed); Ware v. State, 62 S.W.3d 344, 353–54 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’d) (holding that entry of nunc pro tunc judgment was not 

untimely when entered after filing of notice of appeal and before filing of appellate 

record in court of appeals).

Having concluded that the trial court entered the purported nunc pro tunc 

judgment without jurisdiction, we consider Hudson’s challenges to the court costs. 

Hudson contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the assessment of 

court costs in the amount of $329.00 or $374.00. He argues that the J.I.M.S. cost 

bill assessment is not a proper bill of costs because it is a computer screen print out

and that there is no evidence that the cost bill was presented to the trial court at the 

time of judgment. We reject these arguments because the Court of Criminal 

Appeals has held that the cost bill assessment need not be presented to the trial 

court and that the J.I.M.S. cost bill assessment is sufficient to support court costs. 

See Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385, 391–94 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 

“[W]e review the assessment of court costs on appeal to determine if there is 

a basis for the cost, not to determine if there was sufficient evidence offered at trial 

to prove each cost, and traditional Jackson evidentiary-sufficiency principles do 

not apply.” Id. at 390. We review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the 

award of costs in the light most favorable to the trial court’s judgment. See Mayer

v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552, 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Cardenas v. State, 403 
11

S.W.3d 377, 385 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013), aff’d, 423 S.W.3d 396

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

A defendant convicted of a felony offense must pay certain statutorily 

mandated costs and fees. See Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 394. The record shows that 

Hudson was convicted of a felony in district court, supporting each of the 

following court costs: 

(1)$133.00 consolidated court cost for conviction of a felony;2

(2)$70.00 for summoning fourteen witnesses;

3

(3)$50.00 for executing or processing an issued arrest warrant, capias, 

or capias pro fine;

4

(4)$40.00 to the clerk’s office;5

(5)$25.00 district court records preservation fee;6

 

2

TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 133.102(a)(1) (West Supp. 2013) (“A person 

convicted of an offense shall pay as a court cost, in addition to all other costs . . . 

$133 on conviction of a felony”).

3

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.011(a)(3) (West Supp. 2013) (“A defendant 

convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor shall pay . . . $5 for summoning a 

witness.”).

4

Id. art. 102.011(a)(2) (“A defendant convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor shall 

pay the following fees for services performed in the case by a peace officer . . . 

$50 for executing or processing an issued arrest warrant, capias, or capias pro fine

. . . .”).

5

Id. art. 102.005(a) (West 2006) (“A defendant convicted of an offense in a county 

court, a county court at law, or a district court shall pay for the services of the 

clerk of the court a fee of $40.”).
12

(6)$20.00 jury fee;

7

(7)$6.00 for support for the judiciary;8

(8)$5.00 jury summoning fee;9

(9)$5.00 commitment fee;10

(10) $5.00 release fee;

11

(11) $5.00 security fee;12

(12) $4.00 jury reimbursement fee.13

 

6

Id. art. 102.005(f) (“A defendant convicted of an offense in a . . . district court 

shall pay a fee of $25 for records management and preservation services 

performed by the county as required by Chapter 203, Local Government Code.”).

7

Id. art. 102.004(a) (West 2006) (“A defendant convicted by a jury . . . in district 

court shall pay a jury fee of $20.”). 

8

TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 133.105(a) (West 2008) (“A person convicted of 

any offense, other than an offense relating to a pedestrian or the parking of a motor 

vehicle, shall pay as a court cost, in addition to all other costs, a fee of $6 to be 

used for court-related purposes for the support of the judiciary.”).

9

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.011(a)(7) (“A defendant convicted of a 

felony or a misdemeanor shall pay . . . $5 for summoning a jury, if a jury is 

summoned”).

10 Id. art. 102.011(a)(6) (“A defendant convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor shall 

pay the following fees for services performed in the case by a peace officer . . . $5 

for commitment or release”). 

11 Id. 

12 Id. art. 102.017(a) (West Supp. 2013) (“A defendant convicted of a felony offense 

in a district court shall pay a $5 security fee as a cost of court.”).

13 Id. art. 102.0045(a) (West Supp. 2013) (“A person convicted of any offense, other 

than an offense relating to a pedestrian or the parking of a motor vehicle, shall pay 

as a court cost, in addition to all other costs, a fee of $4 to be used to reimburse 
13

(13) $4.00 for the court technology fund;

14 and

(14) $2.00 for support of indigent defense;15

These fees total $374.00:

$ 133.00 (consolidated court cost for conviction of a felony)

$ 70.00 (summoning witnesses fee)

$ 50.00 (serving capias fee)

$ 40.00 (clerk’s office fee)

$ 25.00 (district court records preservation fee)

$ 20.00 (jury fee)

$ 6.00 (support for the judiciary fee)

$ 5.00 (jury summoning fee)

$ 5.00 (commitment fee)

$ 5.00 (release fee)

$ 5.00 (security fee)

$ 4.00 (jury reimbursement fee)

$ 4.00 (court technology fee)

$ 2.00 (support of indigent defense fee)

$ 374.00

The trial court assessed costs in the amount of $329.00. The record shows a basis 

for assessing costs in at least that amount. See Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 389, 396.

 

counties for the cost of juror services as provided by Section 61.0015, Government 

Code.”).

14 Id. art. 102.0169(a) (West Supp. 2013) (“A defendant convicted of a criminal 

offense in a . . . district court shall pay a $4 county and district court technology 

fee as a cost of court.”).

15 TEX. LOC. GOV’T. CODE ANN. § 133.107(a) (West Supp. 2013) (“A person 

convicted of any offense, other than an offense relating to a pedestrian or the 

parking of a motor vehicle, shall pay as a court cost, in addition to other costs, a fee 

of $2 to be used to fund indigent defense representation through the fair defense 

account established under Section 79.031, Government Code.”).
14

Hudson also challenges the assessment of a $70.00 fee for summoning 

witnesses. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 102.011(a)(3) provides that a

“defendant convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor shall pay . . . $5 for 

summoning a witness.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.011(a)(3) (West

Supp. 2013). In Ramirez v. State, 410 S.W.3d 359, 366 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] 2013, no pet.), this court held that the statute permits the assessment of a $5 

fee per witness each time a witness is served a summons. See id. at 365–66 

(“[T]he intent of the statute is to reimburse the costs borne by the peace officer. 

This goal would not be achieved by allowing only one payment for summoning a 

witness regardless of the number of times that witness would have to be 

summoned. Accordingly, we construe the statute to require a $5 fee for each 

witness summoned each time the witness is summoned.”). 

Here, the record establishes that a peace officer summoned six witnesses on 

March 23, 2012, five witnesses on June 11, 2012, three witnesses on October 17, 

2012, and five witnesses on November 5, 2012. This is sufficient to support the 

assessment of $70.00 for summoning 14 witnesses. See Ramirez, 410 S.W.3d at 

365 (holding that record establishing at least 28 witnesses were summoned was 

sufficient to support assessment of costs for summoning 20 witnesses).

We overrule Hudson’s second issue.
15

Reformation of the Judgment

“[A]n appellate court has authority to reform a judgment to include an 

affirmative finding to make the record speak the truth when the matter has been 

called to its attention by any source.” French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1992) (citing Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 531 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d)); accord Nolan v. State, 39 S.W.3d 697, 698 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (holding that an appellate court has the power to 

correct and reform a trial judgment to make the record speak the truth when it has 

the necessary data and information to do so); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b). 

The State requests that we reform the judgment to assess the full measure of 

mandatory costs applicable upon conviction. The Code of Criminal Procedure 

contemplates that the State may revisit the amount of costs due by filing an 

appropriate motion in the trial court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 

103.007 (West 2006) (“After a defendant has paid costs, no more costs may be 

charged against the defendant unless the court rules on a motion presented to the 

court that additional costs are due.” (emphasis added)). Thus, the State may file a 

motion in the trial court to collect court costs in excess of those already assessed in 

the judgment. See id. However, in Smith v. State, -- S.W.3d --, No. 01-12-00485-

CR, 2014 WL 2958274 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 30, 2014, no pet. h.), 

this court held that once we have already reviewed the record concerning court 
16

costs in conjunction with resolving an appellant’s challenge to those costs, it would 

not serve judicial efficiency to require the State to avail itself of the remedy it is 

afforded under article 103.007 and, therefore, we may modify the judgment to 

reflect the applicable mandatory costs identified by the State. See id. at *9. 

Because we have determined that the applicable mandatory statutory costs amount 

to $374.00, we will modify the judgment accordingly. See id. (modifying 

judgment to reflect applicable mandatory costs identified by State).

Conclusion

We modify the original judgment dated November 28, 2012 to reflect the 

mandatory statutory costs of court in the amount of $374.00, and as modified, we 

affirm.

Rebeca Huddle

Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Huddle.

Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).