## NO. 12

- 1 1

- 00 3 2 5

- C R

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

T WELFTH 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 c ourt costs against him. We modify the judgment of the trial

court, and affirm as modified.

B ACKGROUND

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

tampering with a government record. Appellant entered a plea of “ gu ilty ” 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 t o pay a fee for the preparation of a2

pre sentence investigation report

. Appellant pleaded “true” to each al legation 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.

C OSTS

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 a re 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 punishme nt to which the

defendant is subject, o r 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 App ellant. C onsequently , there is insufficient eviden ce to support the assessment of

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

Appellant’s sole issue

.

D ISPOSITION

We have sustained Appellant’s sole issue. S ince 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 t otal amount of $520.00. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2(b). We affirm as modified.3 

### B RIAN 

### H OYLE

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

NOVEM BER 30 , 20 12



### NO. 12

- 11

- 00325

- C R

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 th is c ourt 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

mod ified , 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.