## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 19

- 00103

- CR

____________

_ ________ ______

On Appeal from the 29 7 t h D i strict Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1554548D

B efore Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and Womack, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack 

### T YRELL 

### C ARLISLE 

### , Appellant

V


### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. I NTRODUCTION
In two issue s , Appellant Tyrell C arlisle appeals from the judgment ad jud icating him guilty and sentencing him to twelve years ’ confineme nt for burglary of a
habitation. Specifically , he co m plains that the fine asse ssed in the judgment w as not pronounced orally and therefore must be delet ed from the judgmen t and that the tr ial court violated his right to due process when it imposed money “ D UE TO CSC D ” 1 and prob ation fees as “ reparation s ” in the judgment of conviction. S ustain ing the
first issue in its entirety and the second issu e in part , we mod ify the judgment to
delete t he fine and the money “ D UE TO CSCD. ” As modified, the judgment is
affirmed.
II. B ACKGROUND
O n Octo ber 9, 201 8, Carlisle pleaded guilt y to burglary of a habitation and , pu rsuant to a plea agreement , was placed o n deferre d adju dication community

su per vision for five years. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)( 3 ) ; Tex. Cod e Crim.
Proc. Ann. art. 42A.101

. In its order, t he trial court also assessed an unsu s pended

1 “ CSC D ” is a common initialism of the community

- super v isio n and corrections depart m ent. See Deme rson v. Sta te , No. 02

- 18

- 00003

- CR, 2018 WL 3580893, at *1 n. 2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth July 26, 2018, no pet. ) (mem. op

. , not design ated for publication).3

$500 fine and $279 in court costs , b u t it did not order restitution. 2 Carlisle ’ s original

c onditions of community supervision r equired him t o pay $60 e ach month a s a supervision fee, $20 as a crime

- stoppers fee , $500 as a fine, and $279 as court costs
. The condi tions w ere late r supplemented t o include a requirement that he pay $3,500
in restitution at the rate of $70 per month

. In addition to other conditions of

comm uni ty supervision , Carlisle was required to “ [s]ubmit a v a lid, non

- dilute, non

adulterated uri n e, hair, bloo d, breath, or saliva sample for testing for controlled substances, alcohol, and cannabinoids according to the time and manner as directed by the supervision officer ” and to participate in Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring “ until rele a s ed by the Court. ” On November 16, 2018, the State filed a petition to revoke Carlisle ’ s

commu nity sup ervis ion and to adju dicate his g uilt of the underlyin g offe nse. The State alleged that Carlisle failed to comply with th e rules an d / or procedures of the
G PS monitor by cutting off or oth erwise removing the device on o r about
No vem ber 6, 2018 , and that he fai led to provide a urine sample on three occasions.
At the February 15, 2019 hearing on the State ’ s a llegations, the tria l court revoked Carlisle ’ s community supervision, adjudged him guilty of bur glary of a
habi tat ion, and sent enced him to twel ve years ’ confinement

. See Tex. Penal Code
Ann. § 30.0 2 (c) (2 ). The t rial court did not announce any fi ne orally.

2 The terms of Carlisle ’ s plea agreement included a recommen d atio n that

“ restitution [wou l d] be determined. ”4

In the resulting judgment, the trial court assessed a $500 fine , $2 79 in court

cos ts, and $3,500 in r estitution

. As shown on the C SC D balance sheet, the

“ reparations owed ” was comprised of $240 i n pr o bation fees and $35 “ DUE TO
CS CD , ” as w e l l as $2 7 9 in court c osts, a $500 fi ne , and $3 , 500 in restit ution. The
attach ed and incorporated order to with draw funds authorized the withdrawal of $1 ,054 3 from Ca rli s le ’ s in mate trust account. Carlisl e appealed from the judgment. In his brief, Carlisle complains th a t the fine assessed in the judgment was not
pr on ounced orally and must therefore be del eted from the judgment and that the trial

co urt violated his right to due process when it imposed mon e y “ D UE TO CSCD ” and prob a ti on fees as “ reparations ” in the jud gment of convict ion. The State a gr ees th at the fine as se ssed in the judgment was not pro nounce d orally and must, therefore, be deleted from the judgme nt. With regard to the second is s ue , the State agre es that
the judgment should be modified to remove the $35 “ D UE TO CSCD , ” bu t it
dis agrees that unp aid pro bation fees can not be converted into reparations.
III. D ISCUSSION We first review the fine assessed in the judgment and whether i t w as pronounced or ally

. Fines are different from other costs because they are punitive and

are intended to be par t of the con victe d defendant ’ s sentence. Armstrong v. Sta te ,

3 This amount appears to be th e result of adding the amounts for reparations (made up of the com munity

- supervision fees and the amount “ DUE TO CSCD ” ), the fine, and court co sts.5

340 S.W.3d 759, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). When guilt is adjudicated upon a

v i ol ation of a condi tion of community supervision, the order adjudicating guilt sets
aside the order deferr in g adjudication, including any previously imposed fines. Tayl or v. State , 131 S.W.3d 497, 502 (Tex. Crim

. A pp
. 2004). The trial court ’ s oral
prono u nc ement of sentenc e controls over its w ritten jud gment to the extent that th ey conflict. See i

d. ; Mitche ll v. Sta te , No. 02

- 17

- 00112

- CR, 2017 WL 6759032, at *1 (T ex. App.

— Fort Worth Dec. 28, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
H er e , although the jud g ment adjudicating guilt includes a $500 fine, the trial court failed to orally annou nc e any fine when it pronounced Carlisle ’ s sentence. Therefore, the judgment must be modified by deleting the $500 fine.
We next review the a ssessment o f costs “ to determ i ne if there is a basis for the

cost. ” Johnson v. State , 423 S.W.3d 385, 390 ( Tex. C ri m. App. 2014). “ Court costs, as reflected in a certified bill of costs, need neither be orally pronounced nor incorporated by reference in the judgme n t to be effective. ” Armstrong , 340 S.W.3d at 766. Therefore, u nli ke the fine, the reparations, which ar e not fine

- based, were not part of Carlisle ’ s sentence and , therefore, were not required to be include d in the trial

court ’ s oral pronounce ment of sen t en ce. See Demerso n , 2018 WL 3580893, at *2.
Carli s le attac ks the “ reparations ” category of the money alleged t o be due , which include s funds charact erized in the records as “ probation fees ” in the amount of $240 and “ DUE TO CSCD ” in the amount of $35. While Carlisle argu e s that it is
unclear th at un paid probation fees and money “ D UE TO CS C D ” can be defin ed6

broad ly as reparations , he ack nowl edge s that we have held other wise. See Zamarripa v.
State , 506 S.W.3d 715, 716 (Tex. App

. — F ort W orth 2016, pet. ref ’ d ). In add ition , th is

cour t recently held, [Appellant ’ s] sole argument covered only questions relat ed to whether probation fees in general, including the fees assessed in his judgment of conviction, can be properly characterize d a s reparations under the law and therefore a ssessed as such. Havin g rejected that ex act argument in the past, and being provided no additional argument or authority pers uading us to revisit those pr ior holdings, we overrule [Appellant ’ s] sole p oint.
Ki t ch en v. State , No. 02

- 18

- 00374

- CR, 2019 WL 3 0 69871 , at *3 (Tex. App.

— For t Worth July 15, 2019, pet. ref ’ d ). Th erefor e, the judgment properly include d probation
fees i n the amount of $240. However, the $35 “ D UE TO CSCD ” finds no su pport in the rec ord. A fe e should be struck from the judgment if th e authority for it cannot be discerned. See Aguir re v. State , N o . 02

- 18

- 00 117

- CR, 2018 WL 6844137, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Fort
Worth De c . 31, 2018, pet

. ref ’ d) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

. Therefore, t h e judgment must be modified to d elete the $3 5 shown as “ DUE TO
CSCD

. ”
IV. C ONCLUSION
H aving sustained Carlis le ’ s first issue in its entirety and his second issue in part ,

we modify the t rial co urt ’ s j udgment and the in co rporated order to withdraw funds t o de lete the $500 fine and $35 “ D UE TO CSCD

. ” As modified, we affirm the trial

court ’ s judgment. S ee Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b).7 /s/ Dana Womack
D ana Womack Justice
Do Not Publish Te x. R. App. P. 47.2(

b)
Delivere d : O ctober 3, 2019