Modified 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 charged 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 follows:

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 

amount 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 

conviction 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. TEX. LOC. GOV’T 

CODE ANN. § 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 requests 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. App.—

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 $1332in case where offense 

occurred 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 nature 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 first 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 TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 134.101).

2

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

GOV’T CODE ANN. § 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 to 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 show 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

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. 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) Penal Code.”

Additionally, the trial court’s bill of costs is MODIFIED as follows:

We REMOVE the following charges: (i) JURY FEE $1.00, and (ii) 

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 31st day of May, 2023.