## NO. 12

- 20

- 00058

- CR

IN THE COUR T OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

DESMOND DEONTAE MOSS , APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE §

§

§ APPE AL FROM THE 7TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORAND UM OPINION
Desmond D eontae Moss a ppeals h is conviction for failure to regis ter as a sex offen der

. O n appeal , Appellant argues that the trial court erred in assessing court costs for the “ cou nty
spec ialty court account ” and overcharg ing for the “ courthouse security fund ” fee. We modify
and a ffi rm as modified

.

B A CKGROUND Appellant was charg ed by in dic tm ent with failure to register as a se x offender in that , while knowing he was requ i red to regist er with the local law enforcement a utho rity in the municipality where he resided or intende d to resi de for more than seven days, namely Tyler,
Texas , because of a reportable conviction for aggra vated sexual assault of a child, he fail ed to

re g i ster with the local law enforcement a uthority in the m unic ipa lity , a third degree felony

. 1 The
date of the offen se was on or about February 13, 2019. Ap pella nt ma de an “open” plea of “guilty” t o the off ense charged in the indictment

. Appellant and h is co u nsel signed va rious documents in con nection with h is gu ilty plea , including

an agreed punishment recomme ndation , and a stipulation of evidence in which he stipulated, and judicially confesse d, th at each and every allegation in the indictment was tr ue and c orrect, and

1 T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 62.102( a)(b)(2) (West 201 8 )

.2 constituted the evidence in the case

. The t rial court accepted A ppellant’s plea , f ound the
evidence substantia ted h is guilty plea , adjudged Appellant guilty of the off ense charged in the indictment, a nd assessed his punish ment at five years o f impri s onment

. Th e trial court also
ordered Ap pell an t t o pay all c ourt costs in the amount of $ 311.50

. T h is appe al followe d

.

C OURT C OSTS In one issue, Appellant argues that the trial co urt erred in ass essing court costs for the

“ cou nty spe cialty court a ccount ” and overcharging for the “ courthouse securit y fu nd ” fee. The
State concedes error. Standard of Review an d Applica ble Law
We review the assessment of court costs on appeal to determine if there is a basis for the cost, not to determine if there wa s sufficient evidence offered at trial to prove each c ost, a nd
traditional Jackson v. Virginia evidentiary

- suffi ciency principles do not apply. Johnson v. State , 423 S.W.3d 385, 3 89

- 90 (T ex. Crim. App. 2014) (citing Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 316 , 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979) )

. Appellant need not h ave objected at trial to raise a claim challengi ng the bases of assessed costs on appeal

. Id. at 391. When a tr i a l co ur t improperly includes amounts in assessed court cos ts, the proper appe l late remed y is to reform the judgment to de lete the improper fee s. Cates v. State , 402 S.W. 3d 250, 252 (T ex. Cr im. App. 2013). Court costs may not be assessed against a criminal defendant for which a cost is not

express ly provided by law. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 103.002 (West 2 018).
A nalysis
In his br ief, A ppellant first complains that the trial cou rt erred in ass essing a “cou n ty speci al ty court account ” fee. In the b ill of c osts, the trial court ass essed $ 25.00 against Appellant
for a “c o unty spe cialty court account ” fee. Prior to June 2019, A rticle 102.0 17 8(g) p rovi ded that
funds received from co sts on co n viction of an off ense under C hapter 49 of the Texas Penal Code ( intoxication of fenses) or C hapter 481 of the Texas Health and S af ety C ode (controlled
substances offense s) would be deposited to the c redit o f the drug court account to help fund d ru g court programs. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 102.0178(a), (g) (West 2018), repealed by Act of June 15, 2019, 86 th Leg. , R.S., ch. 135 2 , § 1.1 8 , 2 019 T EX

. G EN

. L AWS 1352. In June 2019, the Leg islatur e r ed es ignated the drug court account un der A r ticle 102.0178 to the “ county
spe cialty court account ” under Section 134.101 (b)(6) of the Texas Local Government Code. See3 T EX

. L OCAL G OV ’ T C O D E A NN

. § 134.101( b)(6 ) (West 2021). T he new legislation only appli es
to of fenses committed on or after Janu ary 1, 2020. See Act of June 15, 2019, 86 th Leg. , R.S., ch. 1352, § 5.01 , 2 019 T EX

. G EN

. L AWS 1352.
B ecause Appel lant was not convicted of a dr u g or intoxicat ion offense , the repealed statute, former A rticle 102 .0178(g ), does not apply

. Further, because A ppellant ’ s offense
occurred on or before Feb ruary 13 , 2 019, the new legislation under S ection 134.101(b)(6) also does not apply to Appellant

. T hus, the new “ county specialty court account ” fee should be
removed from his c ourt costs assessment

. Next, Appe llant comp lains that the b ill of c osts assesses a $10.00 “ courthouse security
fund ” fee

. Under A rti cle 102.017 of the Texas Code of C riminal P r ocedure, a defendant convicted of a felony off ense in a d istrict court shall p ay a $5.00 security fee as a cost of court.
See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 102.017 ( a) (West 2018 ) amended by Act of June 15, 2019,
86 th Leg. , R.S., ch. 1352, § 1. 0 8 , 2 019 T E X

. G EN

. L AWS 1352. We note that A rticle 102.017 has
been rew ritten, but only applies to a cost, fee, or fine o n co n viction for a n o f fense committed on or after January 1, 2020. See Act of June 15, 2019, 86 th Leg. , R.S., ch. 1352, § 5.01 , 2 019 T EX

. G EN

. L AWS 1352 (c urrent version at T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. a rt. 102.017 (West Su p p. 2020))

. B ecause Appellan t ’ s offense was committed on February 13, 2019, the new legislation does not apply. Thus, the “ courthouse security fund ” fee of $10.00 is erro neou s and should be
reduced in the b ill of c osts to reflect the pr oper authori zed amou n t of $5.00

. Consequently, we sustain App ellant ’ s sole issue.

D ISPOSITION
Ha ving sustained A pp el lant ’ s sole issue, we modify the trial court ’ s ju dgment , Order to
Withdr aw F unds , and bill of costs to reflect that the amount of court costs is $281.50 by

r emovin g the “ co un ty spe cial ty court account ” fe e and reducing the “ courthouse sec urity fund ”
fee

. We affirm the judgment as modified.
J AMES T. W ORTHEN Chief Justice
Opinion delivered Novem ber 3 , 2021. Panel consisted of Wo rthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

NOVEMBER 3 , 2021

NO. 12

- 20

- 00058

- CR

DESMOND DEONTAE MOSS , Appellant V

. THE ST ATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 7th Distri ct Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007

- 1387

- 19 ) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and the brief s filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this co urt that the ju dgment of the

c ourt below should be m odified and as modified, affirmed. I t is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judg ment , Order to Withdraw Funds , and bill of costs be modified to reflect that the amount of court costs is $ 28 1.5 0 by r emovin g the “ co un ty spe cial ty court a ccount ” fee and reducing the

“ courthouse sec urity fund ” fee ; in all other respects the judgment of the trial court i s affirmed ; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance

. James T. Wo rth en , Chief J ustice

. Panel consisted of Worth en, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.