NO. 12-11-00325-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

GALIN DRAKE TRIMBLE, § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Galin Drake Trimble appeals from his conviction for the state jail felony offense of 

tampering with a government record. In his sole issue on appeal, Appellant contends that the trial 

court erred in its assessment of court costs against him. We modify the judgment of the trial 

court, and affirm as modified.

BACKGROUND

In 2009, Appellant was charged by information with the state jail felony offense of 

tampering with a government record. Appellant entered a plea of “guilty” to the information 

pursuant to an agreed punishment recommendation that he be placed on community supervision. 

In accordance with the agreement, the trial court sentenced Appellant to two years of confinement 

in a state jail facility, suspended for a three year community supervision period.

In 2011, the State filed an application to revoke Appellant’s community supervision. The 

State’s motion alleged that Appellant (1) failed to report for a status hearing, (2) used or consumed 

marijuana, (3) used or consumed cocaine, (4) failed to pay supervision fees, (5) failed to pay court 

costs, (6) failed to pay a Crimestoppers fee, and (7) failed to pay a fee for the preparation of a 
2

presentence investigation report. Appellant pleaded “true” to each allegation in the State’s

motion to revoke. At the hearing on the motion, the trial court found the allegations in the State’s 

motion to be true, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and sentenced Appellant to fifteen 

months of confinement in a state jail facility. This appeal followed. 

COSTS

In his sole issue, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in calculating the applicable 

court costs by imposing court costs for a presentence investigation report that was never prepared. 

Court costs are compensatory in nature, that is, a “nonpunitive recoupment of the costs of 

judicial resources expended in connection with the trial of the case.” Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 

364, 366 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Court costs do not alter the range of punishment to which the 

defendant is subject, or the number of years assessed, and therefore need not be orally pronounced 

or incorporated by reference in the judgment to be effective. Id. at 367. In appropriate cases, we 

may review the trial court’s assessment of costs. See Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759, 767 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2011).

One of the conditions of Appellant’s community supervision required him to pay a $100.00 

fee to the Smith County Supervision and Corrections Department for the preparation of a 

presentence investigation report. However, the record reflects that Appellant waived the 

preparation of that report, and none was ever prepared. The trial court nevertheless assessed that

fee against Appellant. Consequently, there is insufficient evidence to support the assessment of 

that cost. The State concedes error and joins in Appellant’s request. Accordingly, we sustain 

Appellant’s sole issue.

DISPOSITION

We have sustained Appellant’s sole issue. Since we can determine the correct amount of 

costs from the face of the record, we modify the judgment of the trial court to reduce the amount of 

court costs assessed against Appellant by $100.00 so that the judgment reflects an assessment of 

costs in the total amount of $520.00. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b). We affirm as modified.
3

BRIAN HOYLE

 Justice

Opinion delivered November 30, 2012.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

NOVEMBER 30, 2012

NO. 12-11-00325-CR

GALIN DRAKE TRIMBLE,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

_____________________________________________________________________________

 Appeal from the 114th Judicial District Court

 of Smith County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No.114-0092-11)

_____________________________________________________________________________

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 this court that the judgment of the trial court 

below should be modified and, as modified, affirmed.

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

the trial court below be modified by reducing the amount of court costs assessed against Appellant by 

$100.00 so that the judgment reflects an assessment of costs in the total amount of $520.00; and as 

modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed; and that this decision be certified to the trial 

court below for observance.

Brian Hoyle, Justice.

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