## NO S

. 12

- 19

- 00349

- CR 12

- 19

- 00374

- CR

IN THE COUR T OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

SCOTT MICHAEL YOUNG , APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL S FROM THE 241ST

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORAN DUM OPINION Scott Michael Young appeals his convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child and
continuous sexual a buse of a young child or children

. In two issues, Appellant challenges the
court cost assessment in trial court cause number 241

- 1150

- 17, the tim e payment fee in trial
court cause number 241

- 1149

- 17, and the local consolidated fee in both cases. We modify and
affirm as modified

.

B ACKGR OUND Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than six years of age with a previous felony conviction 1 and continuous sexual abuse of a young
child or childr en

. 2 H e pleaded “ not guilty” to the offenses and “tr ue” to the enhancement paragraph , and the matter proceeded to a bench trial. Ultimately, the trial court foun d Appellant “guilty” of the charges , assessed his punishment at imprisonment for life in each case , and
ordered the sentences cumulated

. This app eal followed.

1 A first

- degree felony with a minimum imprisonment term of twenty

- five years. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

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

2 A first

- degree felony with a minimum imprisonment term of twenty

- five ye a rs. See id. § 21.02( b ), (h) (West 2019).2 D UPLICATE C OURT C OST A SSESSMENT In Appellant’s first issue, he argues that the trial court erre d 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 co unts 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 Subs ection (a), each court cost or fee the amo u nt 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 defendan t’s convictions.

T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. a rt. 1 02.0 73 (a), (b) (West 2018 ). In this context, we construe the phrase “ [i]n a single criminal action” to mean in a s ingle 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. Th erefore, the trial court was authorized

to assess each court cost and fee only once against Appellant. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 102.07 3(a). However, each judgment shows a court cost assessment of $579.00. The two bill s of costs list the same f ees totaling $579.00. We conclude that the trial court erred by assessing each of these fees twice against Appellant. See id. Acc ordingly, we s ustain 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). Bec ause 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

- 1 150

- 1 7 should be modified to reflect that the amount of court costs is $ 0 .00. See id. ; T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 43.2( b).

L OCAL C ONSOLIDATED F EE 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 Cons olidated Fee on Conviction of Felony applies only to defendant s 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

. — Tyle r Apr. 14, 2021, no pet. h.) (mem. o p., not designated for publication) (citing T EX

. L OC

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 134.101 (West Supp. 2021 )).
Section 134.101 as sesses an additional $105 fee for a person who is convicted of a felony. See
T EX

. L OC

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 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 a nd

prese rvation fund, the county jury fund, the courthouse security fund, the county and district court technology fund, and the co unty specialty court account. See id. § 134.101( b )

. In the instant case, the commission date for the aggravated sexual ass ault is June 6, 2017,
and the commission dates for the continuous sexual abuse are April 1, 2017 through June 6,
2017. E ach judgment reflects tha t the trial court assessed $579.00 in court costs and includes a
document identifie d as “Attachment A Order to Wi t hdraw Funds,” which states that Appellant has incurred “[c] ourt costs, fees and/or fines and/or restitution” in the amount of $579.00. Each

c ertified bill of costs includes the following costs list ed in Section 134.101: $ 40.00 Clerk of the Court; $4.0 0 County and District Court Tech n ology Fund; $4.00 Jury Reimbursement Fee; $25.00 County Records Managem en t and Preservation; $ 5 .00 Courthouse Sec urity 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.” Se e Hayes , 2021 WL 1418400, at *2. We conclude d above that the judgment and withdrawal order in trial court
cause number 241

- 1150

- 17 should be modified to r eflect 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 m odified to reflect that the amount of court co sts is $501.00. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

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

T IME P AYMENT F EE Also in his second issue, Appellant argues that the trial court i mproperly assessed the time payment fee as a court cost in trial court cause number 241

- 1149

- 1 7 ’ s bill of cost s

. 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 cost s even if the cost was4 neither orally pronounced nor incorporated by reference in the judgment. See Armst rong v. State , 340 S.W.3d 759, 765 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) ( court of appeals erred by refusing to review
challe nge 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 Appella nt’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 resti tution he owes. See
id. We sustain this part of Appellant’s second issue.

D ISPOSITION Having sustained Appellant’s first and second issues, w e 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 tha t the amount of court costs is $501.00, and modify
the bill of costs in trial court cause number 241

- 1149

- 17 t o remove the time payment fee without prejudice

. We affirm the judgment s as modified.

G REG N EELEY 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 MICHAE L 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 brief s filed herein, and the same being considered, becaus e it is the opinion of this court that the judgment of
the court below should be modified and as modified, affirmed.
I t is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DEC REED that the judgment
and withdrawal order of the court below be modified to reflect that the am ount 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 obs ervance

. Greg Neeley , Justice

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

, J.

## C OURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 1 , 2021

NO. 12

- 19

- 003 74

- CR

SCOTT MICHAEL YOUNG , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , App ellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241

- 11 4 9

- 17 ) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and the brief s filed herein, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this court that the ju dgment of
the court below should be modified and as modified, affirmed.
I t is therefo re 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, th e bill of c osts be modified to remove the time payment fee without prejudice ; in all other respec ts 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., an d Neeley

, J.