## NO

. 12

- 23

- 00139 -CR

IN THE COUR T 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.

B ACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with burglary of a building. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pleaded “guilty” an d 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 co nf inement. This appeal followed.2 B ILL OF C OSTS In his sole issue, Appellant argues that the bill of costs contains an i n accurate 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 res o urces that enable [Appellant] to offset in part or in whole the cost of the legal services provided to [Appellant]”
and further o rders Appellant to pay the court appointed attorney ’ s fees in his case. However, the trial court has since entered two nunc p r o 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 t o remain indigent for the remainder of the proceedings in the case unless a material change in the
defendant’ s financial circumst ances occurs.” T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC A NN

. art. 26.04(p) (West Supp. 2023 ); see Fulmer v. State , 401 S.W.3d 305, 318

– 19 (Tex. A pp.– San Antonio 2013, pet.
ref ’ d) (holding trial court erred in ordering indigent criminal defendant to pay court -appointed

attorn ey ’ s f ees absent evidence of a material change in financial circumstances). Here, nothing
in the record shows a material chan ge in Appellant ’ s financial circumstances since counsel was appointed to represent him. Absent a showing of a material change in A ppellant’ s financial circumstances, it was error for the district clerk to assess attorney ’ s fees against Appellant in the
bil l o f costs. See Benavidez v. State , 423 S.W.3d 520, 522 (Tex. App.

– San Antonio 2014, no pet.). Because the assessment of attorney ’ s fee s against Appellant was erroneous, it must be corrected. Accordingly, we reform the bill of costs to delete the assessme nt 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 pe t.) (m em. op., not designated for publication) (reforming both judgment and
bill of costs to delete assessment of atto rney ’ s fees against indigent criminal defendant). We sustain Appellant’s sole issue.3 D ISPOSITION 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 seco nd nunc pro tunc judgment.

J AMES T. W ORTHEN Chief Justice
Opinion delivered February 22, 2024. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and N eeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT O F TEXAS

JUDGMENT

F EBRUARY 22, 2024

NO. 12-23-00139- CR

DEKEIDRIAN KESHUN ROLLINS , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appea l from the 349th District Court
of Houston County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 21CR-064) THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the ap pellate record and the briefs filed herein, and the same being inspected, it is the opinion of the Court that the bill o f cost s of the trial court
below should be modified

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

costs of the court be low be modified t o delete the assessment o f attorney ’ s fees ; the trial court’s second nunc pro tunc judgment is affirmed ; and that t his decision be certified to the trial court
below for observance.

James T. Worthe n, Chief J ustice

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