AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed July 21, 2017. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 16
- 00975
- CR WILLIAM AARON MERRIF IELD , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16
- 54208
- Y 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Lang

- Miers, and Evans Opinion by Justice Lang

- Miers William Aaron Merrifield waived a jury, pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams, and pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph included in the indictment. After finding appellant guilty and the enhancement paragraph true, the trial court assessed punishment at fifteen years’ imprisonment. The trial court’s judgment also orders appellant to pay $309 in court costs. In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court erred in ordering him to pay court costs because he is indigent. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Appellant argues that because he had already been found to be indigent, the trial court erred in assessing court costs. Appellant asserts there was no evidence presented that he had the ability to pa y costs, and the trial court did not inquire about his financial resources or his ability– 2

– to pay. The State responds that the trial court did not err in assessing court costs because it may assess costs regardless of a defendant’s ability to pay. The Co urt of Criminal Appeals has stated that the statutes “authorizing an assessment of court costs against convicted defendants was intended by the Legislature as a non

- punitive recoupment of the costs of judicial resources expended in connection with the tria l of a case.” Weir v. State , 278 S.W.3d 364, 365

– 66 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 103.001 (West 2006) (stating when court costs in criminal cases are collectible). U pon conviction, the imposition of court costs is mandatory if t he punishment is other than a fine

. T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 42.16 . The allowable types and amounts of costs a r e set by
statute. Id

. art . 102 (West 2006 & Supp. 2016 ). Only c ost s expressly provided by law may be imposed

. Id . art. 103.002 (West 2006 ). The s tatutes governing costs make no reference to a defendant’s ability to pay. See, e.g. , T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 102.021, .041 5 (West Supp. 2016). Because the assessment of court costs is mandatory after a conviction is obtained, we conclude the trial court did not err in assessing $309 in court costs. We overrule appellant’s sole issue. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 160975F.U05 /Elizabeth Lang

- Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
WILLIAM AARON MERRIFIELD, Appellant
No. 05

- 16

- 00975

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16

- 5420 8

- Y. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang

- Miers. Justices Bridges and Evans participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered this 21st day of July, 2017.