M o dified and Affirmed and Opinion Filed May 31, 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 22
- 00186
- CR DANNY ARAGONMARQUEZ , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F
- 1812099
- U MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Nowell, Goldstein, and Breedlove

Opinion by Justice Goldstein Danny Aragonmarquez appeals his murder conviction. A jury convicted appellant and sentenced him to thirty years’ confinement. In three issues, appellant

asserts the judgment should be modified to reflect the amount of costs authorized to be assessed against him, reflect that appellant pled not guilty to the cha rged offense, and accurately reflect the penal code section for the offense. As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Appellant was charged by indictment with murder pursuant to penal code
section 19.02(b). At trial in February 2020, appellant pled not guilty to the charges– 2

–

alleged in the indictment. Following trial, the jury found appellant guilty of murder “as charged in the indictment.” The bill of cost shows appellant was assessed $340
itemized as f

ollows:
CLERK’S FEE 40.00 JURY FEE 1.00 CCDC TECHNOLOGY FUND 4.00 COURT HOUSE SEC FEE 10.00 CONS STATE FEES 185.00 COUNTY RECORDS MGT 25.00 DNA FEE 2 50.00 SPECIALTY COURT 25.00 This appeal followed. In his first issue, appellant asks us to modify the judgment to reflect the

am ount of costs authorized to be assessed against him. Specifically, appellant asks
that the $1 jury fee and $25 specialty court fee should be deleted, the amount of the courthouse security fee should be reduced by $5, the amount of costs assessed on
convic tion of a felony should be reduced by $52, resulting in a total reduction in costs of $83.
Section 134.101 of the local government code imposes a $105 court cost on felony convictions,1 which is allocated to six different funds and accounts: (1) the
clerk of the court account; (2) the county records management and preservation fund; (3) the county jury fund; (4) the courthouse security fund; (5) the county and district– 3

–

court technology fund; and (6) the county specialty court account. T EX

. L OC

. G OV ’ T
C ODE A NN

. § 134.101; Shuler v. State , 650 S.W.3d 683, 687 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2022, no pet.). The statute became effective on January 1, 2020, and applies only to
offenses committed on or after that date. 1 The State agrees that the reduction in fees appellant re quests should be granted because the underlying offense occurred in 2018, and the statutes permitting the higher fees assessed did not become effective until January 1, 2020. See , e.g. , Krenzer v. State , No. 05

- 21

- 00444

- CR, 2022 WL 17423464, at *8 (Tex. A pp.

— Dallas Dec. 6, 2022, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (deleting $1 jury fee and $25 specialty court fee , reducing courthouse security fee from $10 to $5 , and reducing consolidated fee on conviction from $185 to $133 2 in case where offense

occu rred prior to January 1, 2020) . This Court has the power to correct and reform the judgment of the court below to make the record speak the truth when it has the necessary data and information to do so, or make any appropriate order as the law
and the nat ure of the case may require. Asberry v. State , 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d). Accordingly, we sustain appellant’s firs t issue and modify the judgment in this case to reduce the costs by $83 for a new total of $257 by deleting the $1 jury fee and $25 specialty court fee, reducing the courthouse

1 See Act of May 23, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., ch. 1352, (S

. B

. 346) §§ 1.05, 5.01, 5.04, 2019 Tex. Gen. Laws 3981, 3984

– 85, 4035 (codified at T EX

. L OC

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 134.101)

. 2 See Act of May 23, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., ch. 1352, (S.B. 346) § 1.03 ( current version at T EX

. L OC

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 133.102(a)(1) )– 4

–

security fee from $10 to $5, and reducing the consolidated fee on conviction from $185 to $133

. In his second and third issues, appellant argues the judgment should be further
modified t o reflect that he pled “not guilty” to the charged offense and that the penal code sections for the offense for which he was convicted are sections 19.02(b)(1) and (2). Again, the State agrees, and the record supports the correction of the judgment to sho w appellant pled “not guilty” and to state the correct section of the penal code. See id. We sustain appellant’s second and third issues and modify the judgment to state that appellant pled “not guilty” and to correctly identify the applicable section of the penal code as sections 19.02(b)(1) and (2). As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

220186f.u05 D o Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b) /Bonnie Lee Goldstein/ / BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE– 5

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT
DANNY ARAGONMARQUEZ, Appellant
No. 05

- 22

- 00186

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F

- 1812099

- U. Opinion delivered by Justice Goldstein. Justices Nowell and Breedlove participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: We REMOVE the word “GUILTY” from the space beneath “Plea to Offense” and substitute the words “NOT GUILTY”; We REMOVE the words “19.02 (C) Penal Code” from the space beneath “Statute for Offense” and substitute the words “19.02(b)(1) and (2) P enal Code.” Additionally, the trial court’s bill of costs is MODIFIED as follows: We REMOVE the follow ing charges: (i) JURY FEE $1.00, and (i i) SPECIALTY COURT $25.00 ; and We REMOVE the amount “$10.00” from the entry for “COURT HOUSE SEC FEE” and INSERT “ $5.00” for this entry.
We REMOVE the amount “$185

. 00” from the entry for “CONS STATE FEES ,” and INSERT “$133.00” for this entry. As REFORMED , the judgment is AFFIRMED

.
Judgment entered this 31 st day of May , 2 023

.