NOS. 12-22-00125-CR

 12-22-00126-CR

 12-22-00127-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

WOODROW FONTAINE HIGH, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Woodrow Fontaine High appeals his three convictions for possession of a 

controlled substance with intent to deliver. In his sole issue, Appellant argues that the trial court 

improperly imposed duplicative court costs in two of the cases. We affirm in trial cause number 

007-1756-21 (appellate cause number 12-22-00126-CR), and we modify and affirm as modified 

in trial cause number 007-0023-22 (appeal number 12-22-00125-CR) and trial cause number 007-

1871-21(appeal number 12-22-00127-CR).

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with three first-degree felony offenses of possession 

of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.1 Appellant pleaded “guilty” to all three offenses in 

a single criminal action and pleaded “true” to an enhancement paragraph in all three cases. The 

trial court assessed punishment at fifty years of confinement in each case and ordered that the 

sentences would run concurrently.

1 See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(d) (West 2017).
2

ASSESSMENT OF DUPLICATIVE COURT COSTS

In his sole issue, Appellant argues that the imposition of court costs in two of the cases is 

improper because said court costs are duplicative of those assessed in the first case. The State 

concedes error.

Applicable Law

The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides as follows:

(a) In a single criminal action in which a defendant is convicted of two or more offenses or of 

multiple counts of the same offense, the court may assess each court cost or fee only once 

against the defendant.

(b) In a criminal action described by Subsection (a), each court cost or fee the amount of which is 

determined according to the category of offense must be assessed using the highest category of 

offense that is possible based on the defendant’s convictions.

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.073(a), (b) (West 2018). In this context, we construe the 

phrase “[i]n a single criminal action” to mean in a single trial or plea proceeding. Hurlburt v. State, 

506 S.W.3d 199, 203 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, no pet.).

Analysis

The record shows that the allegations and evidence of all three offenses were presented in 

a single plea proceeding, or “criminal action.” See id. at 203-04. Therefore, the trial court was 

authorized to assess each court cost and fee only once against Appellant. See TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 102.073(a). When, as here, the convictions are for the same category of offense 

and the costs are the same, the costs should be assessed in the case with the lowest trial court cause 

number. See Williams v. State, 495 S.W.3d 583, 590 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. 

dism’d, No. PD-0947-16, 2017 WL 1493488 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 26, 2017)) (not designated for 

publication); see also Shuler v. State, 650 S.W.3d 683, 690 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2022, no pet.).

The judgment in the case with the lowest trial court cause number, 007-1756-21 (appellate cause 

number 12-22-00126-CR), shows a court cost assessment of $249.00, and the judgments in both 

of the other cases show a court cost assessment of $249.00. The three bills of cost contain identical 

costs and fees. 

We sustain Appellant’s issue as to the duplicative court costs assessed against him in trial 

cause numbers 007-0023-22 and 007-1871-21. We have the authority to correct a trial court’s 

judgment to make the record speak the truth when we have the necessary data and information to 

do so. Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d). Because we 
3

have the necessary data and information to correct the amount of court costs in trial cause numbers 

007-1871-21 and 007-0023-22, we conclude that the judgments, the attached order to withdraw 

funds, and the bill of costs in those cases should be modified to remove the duplicate court costs 

of $249. See id.; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b).

DISPOSITION

Having sustained Appellant’s issue as to trial cause numbers 007-1871-21 and 007-0023-

22, we modify the trial court’s judgment, Order to Withdraw Funds, and bill of costs in said trial 

court cause numbers (appellate cause numbers 12-22-00125-CR and 12-22-00127-CR) to reflect 

that the amount of court costs is $0.00. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b). In all other respects, we affirm

the trial court’s judgments in trial cause numbers 007-17-1871-21 and 007-0023-22 (appellate 

cause numbers 12-22-00125-CR and 12-22-00127-CR) as modified. We affirm the trial court’s 

judgment in trial cause number 007-1756-21 (appellate cause number 12-22-00126-CR).

BRIAN HOYLE

 Justice

Opinion delivered October 21, 2022. 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

OCTOBER 21, 2022

NO. 12-22-00125-CR

WOODROW FONTAINE HIGH,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-0023-22)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein, 

and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that the judgment of the court below 

should be modified and as modified, affirmed.

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

the court below is modified to reflect that the amount of court costs is $0.00; in all other respects, 

the judgment of the trial court is affirmed; and that the decision be certified to the court below for 

observance.

Brian Hoyle, Justice. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 21, 2022

NO. 12-22-00126-CR

WOODROW FONTAINE HIGH,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-1756-21)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein, 

and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

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

the court below be in all things affirmed, and that the decision be certified to the court below for 

observance.

Brian Hoyle, Justice.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 21, 2022

NO. 12-22-00127-CR

WOODROW FONTAINE HIGH,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-1871-21)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein, 

and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that the judgment of the court below 

should be modified and as modified, affirmed.

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

the court below is modified to reflect that the amount of court costs is $0.00; in all other respects 

the judgment of the trial court is affirmed; and that the decision be certified to the court below for 

observance.

Brian Hoyle, Justice.

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