NO. 12-23-00139-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DEKEIDRIAN KESHUN ROLLINS, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

APPELLEE

§

§ 

§ 

APPEAL FROM THE 349TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HOUSTON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Dekeidrian Keshun Rollins appeals the revocation of his community supervision. In his 

sole issue, Appellant argues the bill of costs erroneously reflects he must repay his court 

appointed attorney’s fees. We modify the bill of costs and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with burglary of a building. Pursuant to a plea 

agreement, Appellant pleaded “guilty” and was placed on deferred adjudication community 

supervision for three 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 

two years confinement. This appeal followed. 
2 

BILL OF COSTS

In his sole issue, Appellant argues that the bill of costs contains an inaccurate assessment 

of costs. Specifically, he urges that the bill of costs incorrectly requires him to reimburse his 

court-appointed attorney’s fees. He contends we should modify the bill of costs to delete those 

fees. The State agrees, and so do we.

 At the hearing, the trial court assessed costs “as calculated by the clerk.” The clerk later 

submitted a “Revocation Bill of Costs” that included $317 in court costs and $675 in attorney’s 

fees. The original judgment stated that Appellant “has financial resources that enable 

[Appellant] to offset in part or in whole the cost of the legal services provided to [Appellant]” 

and further orders Appellant to pay the court appointed attorney’s fees in his case. However, the 

trial court has since entered two nunc pro tunc judgments, the second of which deleted this 

special finding and lists only court costs of $317. The bill of costs has not been corrected to 

reflect the nunc pro tunc judgment. 

“A defendant who is determined by the court to be indigent is presumed to remain 

indigent for the remainder of the proceedings in the case unless a material change in the 

defendant’s financial circumstances occurs.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC ANN. art. 26.04(p) (West 

Supp. 2023); see Fulmer v. State, 401 S.W.3d 305, 318–19 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2013, pet. 

ref’d) (holding trial court erred in ordering indigent criminal defendant to pay court-appointed 

attorney’s fees absent evidence of a material change in financial circumstances). Here, nothing 

in the record shows a material change in Appellant’s financial circumstances since counsel was 

appointed to represent him. Absent a showing of a material change in Appellant’s financial 

circumstances, it was error for the district clerk to assess attorney’s fees against Appellant in the 

bill of costs. See Benavidez v. State, 423 S.W.3d 520, 522 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2014, no 

pet.). 

Because the assessment of attorney’s fees against Appellant was erroneous, it must be 

corrected. Accordingly, we reform the bill of costs to delete the assessment of attorney’s fees. 

See Green v. State, No. 04–13–00018–CR, 2013 WL 6200328, at *2 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 

Nov. 27, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (reforming both judgment and 

bill of costs to delete assessment of attorney’s fees against indigent criminal defendant). We 

sustain Appellant’s sole issue. 
3 

DISPOSITION

Based on the foregoing, we modify the trial court’s bill of costs by deleting the 

assessment of attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s second nunc pro tunc judgment. 

JAMES T. WORTHEN

Chief Justice

Opinion delivered February 22, 2024. 

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 

FEBRUARY 22, 2024 

NO. 12-23-00139-CR

DEKEIDRIAN KESHUN ROLLINS, 

Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

Appeal from the 349th District Court 

of Houston County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 21CR-064) 

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 bill of costs of the trial court 

below should be modified. 

 It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the bill of 

costs of the court below be modified to delete the assessment of attorney’s fees; the trial court’s 

second nunc pro tunc judgment is affirmed; and that this decision be certified to the trial court 

below for observance. 

James T. Worthen, Chief Justice. 

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