Affirmed as Reformed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 14, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-01099-CR

DUSTIN ZACHARY COLE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1321571

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Dustin Zachary Cole was convicted of credit card abuse and 

sentenced to five years in prison. In a single issue on appeal, appellant contends 

that there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s order that 

he pay a particular amount in court costs. We reform the trial court’s judgment to 

delete the specific amount of costs, and affirm the judgment as reformed.

In its judgment, the trial court ordered appellant to pay $374 in court costs. 
2

Appellant requested the district clerk include the bill of costs in the appellate 

record. In Johnson v. State, 389 S.W.3d 513, 517 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] 2012, pet. granted), this court held that if the record does not support the 

assessment of a certain dollar amount in costs, the trial court errs in entering a 

specific dollar amount in its judgment.

As in Johnson, it is undisputed that the record contains no bill of costs or 

any other evidence that would support the specific amount, $374, assessed in the 

judgment. See id. The clerk’s record contains a printout of a computer screen 

from the Harris County Justice Information Management System (JIMS), entitled 

“J.I.M.S. Cost Bill Assessment,” identifying $374 in court costs. The printout is 

unsigned and undated. This court has determined that an unsigned computer 

screen printout from JIMS that does not appear to have been brought to the 

attention of the trial court judge before he signed the judgment, is not an actual bill 

of costs as contemplated by article 103.001. See Jelks v. State, 397 S.W.3d 759, 

760 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. filed) (concluding that a 

computer screen printout from JIMS signed by an unidentified individual, when 

printout was not presented to the trial judge, could not be considered an 

appropriate bill of costs); Johnson, 389 S.W.3d at 517, n. 1.; Tex. Crim. Proc.

Code art. 103.001. The JIMS document does not bear a signature or a date, nor is 

there evidence in the record that it was presented to the trial court before the 

specific dollar amount was included in the judgment. Thus, the JIMS document 

cannot be considered an appropriate bill of costs. See Jelks, 397 S.W.3d at 760; 

Johnson, 389 S.W.3d at 517, n. 1. No other evidence in the record supports the 

specific dollar amount assigned as court costs. See id.

The State argues that there are numerous provisions in the Texas Code of 

Criminal Procedure authorizing various court costs to be paid by a defendant when 
3

convicted of a felony offense. The State suggests several specific articles of the 

Code of Criminal Procedure and three sections of the Local Government Code 

providing for fees that, if assessed against appellant, would add up to an amount of 

at least $374.1 Therefore, the State maintains, the evidence is sufficient to support 

the $374 in court costs reflected in the judgment.

We have previously rejected this argument. In Rogers v. State, 402 S.W.3d 

410, 420 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. filed), we held that to affirm 

the judgment for costs merely because a number of statutes authorize certain costs 

or fees that could have been assessed against the defendant—without regard to 

whether they were actually assessed—would be speculative. 

The trial court did not err in ordering appellant to pay court costs, as such 

costs are mandated by law, but the court did err in entering a specific dollar 

amount without any support in the record for that dollar amount. See Johnson, 389 

S.W.3d at 516. Because there is no evidence in the record to support the trial 

court’s assessment of a specific dollar amount as court costs, we sustain appellant’s 

sole issue and reform the trial court’s judgment to delete the specific dollar amount 

of costs assessed. See id.; see also Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552, 554–56 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2010) (holding that sufficient evidence must support an assessment of 

costs in a judgment).

We reform the trial court’s judgment to delete the listing of a specific 

 

1

See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 102.0045, 102.005, 102.011, 102.0169, 102.017 and 

Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code §§ 133.102, 133.105, 133.107.
4

amount of court costs and affirm the judgment as reformed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Jamison.

Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).