AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed November 7, 2013. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 13
- 00281
- CR KENDRICK DEON EWING , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F
- 0669161
- T MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Fillmore, and Lewis Opinion by Justice Fillmore In one point of error, Kendrick Deon Ewing complains the trial court erred by ordering him to pay court

- appointed attorney’s fees as court costs. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. We issue this memorandum opinion because the law to be applied in this case is well settled.
See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.4.
On July 16, 2007, Ewing pleaded guilty to the charge that he committed aggravated robbery . The trial court deferred an adjudication of guilt, placed Ewing on deferred adjudication community supervision for ten years, and ordered Ewing to pay a fine of $2 ,500 and court costs of $461

. T he certified bill of c osts filed by the district court in this appeal reflects the actual
cost s assessed were $511 , including $250 for court

- appointed attorney’s fees.– 2

– T he State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt , alleging Ewing committed another offense, failed to report to his supervision officer, and failed to pay supervision fees

. On December 6, 2012, Ewing entered an open plea of true to the allegations. The trial court found Ewing guilty and assessed punishment of ten year s’ imprisonment. The trial court also ordered Ewing to pay $511 in court costs. On appeal, Ewing asserts the trial court erred by ordering him to pay court

- appointed attorney’s fees as court costs because he was indigent. However, the bill of costs fi led by the district clerk shows the court costs and court

- appointed attorney’s fees were assessed at the time Ewing was pla ced on deferred adjudication. A defendant placed on deferred adjudication community supervision may raise issues relating to the ori ginal plea proceeding, such as sufficiency challenges, only in appeals taken when deferred adjudication community supervision is first imposed

. Manue l v. State , 994 S.W.2d 658, 661

– 62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Because the record shows the court

- appointed a ttorney’s fees were assessed when Ewing was original ly placed on deferred adjudication in July 2007, and nothing in the record shows additional attorney’s fees were assessed when he was adjudicated guilty in December 2012, Ewing’s complaint is untimely. S ee Wiley v. State , No. PD

- 1728

- 12, 2013 WL 5337093, at *5 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 25, 2013); Manuel , 994 S.W.2d at 661

– 62

. 1 We resolve Ewing’s sole point of error against him.

1 See also Tyson v. State , No. 05

- 12

- 00579

- CR, 2013 WL 3206304, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas June 21, 2013, no pet.) (not designated for publication).– 3

– T he trial court’s judgment is affirmed

.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 130281F.U05 /Robert M. Fillmore/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE– 4

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
KENDRICK DEON EWING, Appellant
No. 05

- 13

- 00281

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F

- 0669161

- T. Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore, Justices Bridges and Lewis participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFI RMED

. Judgment entered this 7 th day of, November, 2013.

/Robert M. Fillmore/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE