NO. 12-17-00351-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DARIEN DONIE WILSON,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Darian Wilson appeals the trial court’s assessment of court costs following the revocation 

of his community supervision. In one issue, he argues that some of the court costs imposed on 

him are not supported by sufficient evidence. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with burglary of a building. Pursuant to a plea 

agreement with the State, Appellant pleaded “guilty.” The trial court found Appellant “guilty” as 

charged and sentenced him to imprisonment for two years, but suspended Appellant’s sentence 

and placed him on community supervision for five years. 

Thereafter, the State filed a motion to proceed to final adjudication alleging that 

Appellant violated certain terms and conditions of his community supervision. At the hearing on 

the State’s motion, Appellant pleaded “true” to the allegations. Ultimately, the trial court found 

the allegations in the State’s motion to be “true,” revoked Appellant’s community supervision, 

and sentenced him to imprisonment for nine months. This appeal followed.

COURT COSTS

In his sole issue, Appellant argues that we should modify the trial court’s judgment and 

withdrawal order to remove certain court costs. Specifically, Appellant contends that the 
2

evidence does not support his obligation to pay court costs for “DNA Test Fee - Sexual 

Offense.”

Standard of Review and Applicable Law

A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting court costs is reviewable on 

direct appeal in a criminal case. See Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2011). We measure sufficiency by reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the award. 

Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552, 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Cardenas v. State, 403 S.W.3d 

377, 382 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.). Requiring a convicted defendant to pay 

court costs does not alter the range of punishment, is authorized by statute, and is generally not 

conditioned on a defendant’s ability to pay. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.16 (West 

2006); Armstrong, 340 S.W.3d at 767; see also Johnson v. State, 405 S.W.3d 350, 353 (Tex. 

App.–Tyler 2013, no pet.).

Discussion

Where an appellant fails to file a notice of appeal within thirty days of being placed on 

community supervision, an appeal raising issues concerning court costs after final adjudication is 

not timely with respect to the court costs that were assessed in the order of deferred adjudication. 

See Perez v. State, 424 S.W.3d 81, 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Wiley v. State, 410 

S.W.3d 313, 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (defendant whose community supervision was revoked 

forfeited challenge to the court appointed attorney fees as court costs by failing to bring direct 

appeal from order originally imposing community supervision); Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 

658, 661–62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

In the instant case, when Appellant pleaded “guilty,” received a probated sentence, and 

was placed on community supervision, he expressly waived in writing his right to appeal. The 

record further reflects that Appellant acknowledged in writing his obligation to pay court costs as 

a condition of his community supervision. When the trial court sentenced Appellant, it informed 

him that he would be responsible for repaying court costs. Moreover, the trial court’s judgment 

of conviction sets forth the amount of court costs at $539.00. Thus, we conclude that Appellant 

waived his right to appeal the assessment of the costs at issue. See Perez, 424 S.W.3d at 85; 

Wiley, 410 S.W.3d at 318; see also Salinas v. State, No. 12-17-00230-CR, 2018 WL 268887, *2 

(Tex. App.–Tyler Jan. 3, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Appellant’s 

sole issue is overruled.
3

DISPOSITION

Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

GREG NEELEY

Justice

Opinion delivered March 21, 2018.

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

MARCH 21, 2018

NO. 12-17-00351-CR

DARIEN DONIE WILSON,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-1280-16)

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

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment 

of the court below be in all things 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.