NOS. 12-19-00349-CR

 12-19-00374-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

SCOTT MICHAEL YOUNG, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEALS FROM THE 241ST 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Scott Michael Young appeals his convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child and 

continuous sexual abuse of a young child or children. In two issues, Appellant challenges the 

court cost assessment in trial court cause number 241-1150-17, the time payment fee in trial 

court cause number 241-1149-17, and the local consolidated fee in both cases. We modify and

affirm as modified.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated sexual assault of a child younger 

than six years of age with a previous felony conviction1 and continuous sexual abuse of a young 

child or children.2 He pleaded “not guilty” to the offenses and “true” to the enhancement 

paragraph, and the matter proceeded to a bench trial. Ultimately, the trial court found Appellant 

“guilty” of the charges, assessed his punishment at imprisonment for life in each case, and 

ordered the sentences cumulated. This appeal followed.

1 A first-degree felony with a minimum imprisonment term of twenty-five years. See TEX. PENAL CODE 

ANN. § 22.021(a)(1)(B)(i), (e), (f)(1) (West 2019).

2 A first-degree felony with a minimum imprisonment term of twenty-five years. See id. § 21.02(b), (h) 

(West 2019).
2

DUPLICATE COURT COST ASSESSMENT

In Appellant’s first issue, he argues that the trial court erred by assessing court costs 

twice in a single criminal action. The State concedes this error. 

The code of criminal procedure provides as follows:

(a) In a single criminal action in which a defendant is convicted of two or more offenses or of 

multiple counts of the same offense, the court may assess each court cost or fee only once against 

the defendant. 

(b) In a criminal action described by Subsection (a), each court cost or fee the amount of which is 

determined according to the category of offense must be assessed using the highest category of 

offense that is possible based on the defendant’s convictions. 

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.073(a), (b) (West 2018). In this context, we construe the 

phrase “[i]n a single criminal action” to mean in a single trial or plea proceeding. Hurlburt v. 

State, 506 S.W.3d 199, 203 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, no pet.). 

The record in this case shows that the allegations and evidence of both offenses were 

presented in a single trial, or “criminal action.” See id. Therefore, the trial court was authorized 

to assess each court cost and fee only once against Appellant. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. 

art. 102.073(a). However, each judgment shows a court cost assessment of $579.00. The two

bills of costs list the same fees totaling $579.00. We conclude that the trial court erred by 

assessing each of these fees twice against Appellant. See id. Accordingly, we sustain 

Appellant’s first issue. 

We have the authority to correct a trial court’s judgment to make the record speak the 

truth when we have the necessary data and information. Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 

(Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d). Because we have the necessary data and information to 

correct the amount of court costs in this case, we conclude that the judgment and withdrawal 

order in trial court cause number 241-1150-17 should be modified to reflect that the amount of 

court costs is $0.00. See id.; TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b).

LOCAL CONSOLIDATED FEE

In part of his second issue, Appellant argues that the trial court improperly assessed the 

local consolidated fee as a court cost in each case. The State concedes this error.

The Local Consolidated Fee on Conviction of Felony applies only to defendants who are 

convicted of offenses committed on or after January 1, 2020. See Hayes v. State, No. 12-20-
3

00222-CR, 2021 WL 1418400, at *2 (Tex. App.—Tyler Apr. 14, 2021, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication) (citing TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 134.101 (West Supp. 2021)). 

Section 134.101 assesses an additional $105 fee for a person who is convicted of a felony. See

TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 134.101(a). That fee is to be allocated to the following specific 

accounts and funds: the clerk of the court account, the county records management and 

preservation fund, the county jury fund, the courthouse security fund, the county and district 

court technology fund, and the county specialty court account. See id. § 134.101(b).

In the instant case, the commission date for the aggravated sexual assault is June 6, 2017, 

and the commission dates for the continuous sexual abuse are April 1, 2017 through June 6, 

2017. Each judgment reflects that the trial court assessed $579.00 in court costs and includes a 

document identified as “Attachment A Order to Withdraw Funds,” which states that Appellant 

has incurred “[c]ourt costs, fees and/or fines and/or restitution” in the amount of $579.00. Each

certified bill of costs includes the following costs listed in Section 134.101: $40.00 Clerk of the 

Court; $4.00 County and District Court Technology Fund; $4.00 Jury Reimbursement Fee;

$25.00 County Records Management and Preservation; $5.00 Courthouse Security Fund. The 

sum of these costs is $78.00.

Because the offenses in this case were committed before January 1, 2020, Appellant is 

not obligated to pay the “Local Consolidated Fee on Conviction of Felony.” See Hayes, 2021 

WL 1418400, at *2. We concluded above that the judgment and withdrawal order in trial court 

cause number 241-1150-17 should be modified to reflect that the amount of court costs is $0.00.

Accordingly, we now conclude that the judgment in trial court cause number 241-1149-17 

should be modified to reflect that the amount of court costs is $501.00. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

43.2(b); Asberry, 813 S.W.2d at 529. We sustain this part of Appellant’s second issue. 

TIME PAYMENT FEE

Also in his second issue, Appellant argues that the trial court improperly assessed the 

time payment fee as a court cost in trial court cause number 241-1149-17’s bill of costs. The 

State concedes this error.

In addition to the court cost fees totaling $579.00 in the judgment in trial court cause 

number 241-1149-17, the bill of costs includes a $25.00 time payment fee. This Court has the 

authority to review the propriety of a court cost assessed in a bill of costs even if the cost was 
4

neither orally pronounced nor incorporated by reference in the judgment. See Armstrong v. 

State, 340 S.W.3d 759, 765 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (court of appeals erred by refusing to review 

challenge to attorney’s fees assessed in bill of costs).

The pendency of an appeal stops the clock for purposes of the time payment fee. Dulin v. 

State, 620 S.W.3d 129, 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). Consequently, the assessment of the time 

payment fee in Appellant’s case is premature, and the fee should be struck in its entirety, without 

prejudice to it being assessed later if, more than thirty days after the issuance of the appellate 

mandate, Appellant has failed to completely pay any fine, court costs, or restitution he owes. See 

id. We sustain this part of Appellant’s second issue.

DISPOSITION

Having sustained Appellant’s first and second issues, we modify the trial court’s 

judgment and withdrawal order in trial court cause number 241-1150-17 to reflect that the 

amount of court costs is $0.00, modify the trial court’s judgment and withdrawal order in trial 

court cause number 241-1149-17 to reflect that the amount of court costs is $501.00, and modify 

the bill of costs in trial court cause number 241-1149-17 to remove the time payment fee without 

prejudice. We affirm the judgments as modified.

GREG NEELEY

Justice

Opinion delivered September 1, 2021.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 1, 2021

NO. 12-19-00349-CR

SCOTT MICHAEL YOUNG,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241-1150-17)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and the briefs filed 

herein, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this court that the judgment of 

the court below should be modified and as modified, affirmed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment

and withdrawal order of the court below be modified to reflect that the amount of court costs is 

$0.00; in all other respects the judgment of the trial court is affirmed; and that this decision be 

certified to the court below for observance.

Greg Neeley, Justice.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 1, 2021

NO. 12-19-00374-CR

SCOTT MICHAEL YOUNG,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241-1149-17)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and the briefs filed 

herein, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this court that the judgment of 

the court below should be modified and as modified, affirmed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment

and withdrawal order of the court below be modified to reflect that the amount of court costs is 

$501.00, the bill of costs be modified to remove the time payment fee without prejudice; in all 

other respects the judgment of the trial court is affirmed; and that this decision be certified to the 

court below for observance.

Greg Neeley, Justice. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.