MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed October 22, 2013.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-12-00735-CR

No. 05-12-00736-CR

ZAKIR SHAIKH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F11-00307-J & F11-00479-J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices O’Neill, Francis, and Fillmore 

Opinion by Justice Fillmore

Zakir Shaikh pleaded guilty, without an agreement on punishment, to misapplication of 

fiduciary property in the amount of at least $100,000 but less than $200,000, and theft of 

property in the amount of at least $1,500 but less than $20,000. The trial court found Shaikh 

guilty of both charges and assessed punishment at five years’ imprisonment on the 

misapplication of fiduciary property offense and two years’ imprisonment on the theft offense. 

The trial court also ordered Shaikh to pay restitution of $186,631.45 in the misapplication of 

fiduciary property case and $4,051.76 in the theft case as well as $244 in court costs in each 

case. In four issues, Shaikh argues the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Shaikh to pay 

restitution in each case because the amounts of restitution ordered do not have a factual basis in 

the record and that there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s order that Shaikh pay 
–2–

court costs. In our memorandum opinion of July 3, 2013, we resolved Shaikh’s first two issues 

in his favor, set aside the trial court’s restitution orders, abated these appeals, and ordered the 

trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the proper amounts of restitution.

On September 5, 2013, we reinstated the appeals. We have received a supplemental 

reporter’s record of the hearing conducted by the trial court and a supplemental clerk’s record

containing the trial court’s order that Shaikh pay restitution of $185,503.43 in the misapplication 

of fiduciary property case and $4,051.76 in the theft case. Although we provided Shaikh an 

opportunity to file a supplemental brief to raise any alleged error committed by the trial court 

during the hearing to determine the proper amounts of restitution, Shaikh has not done so. 

Accordingly, we modify (1) the trial court’s judgment in cause number F11-00307-J to reflect 

that Shaikh is ordered to pay restitution of $185,503.43 in the misapplication of fiduciary 

property case, and (2) the trial court’s judgment in cause number F11-00479-J to reflect that 

Shaikh is ordered to pay $4,051.76 in restitution on the theft offense. See TEX. R. APP. P.

43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 

S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d).

In his third and fourth issues, Shaikh requests we reform the trial court’s judgments to 

delete the requirement that he pay court costs because the clerk’s record in each case does not 

contain a bill of costs. If a criminal action is appealed, “an officer of the court shall certify and 

sign a bill of costs stating the costs that have accrued and send the bill of costs to the court to 

which the action or proceeding is . . . appealed.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 103.006 

(West. 2006). Costs may not be collected from the person charged with the costs until a written 

bill, containing the items of cost, is produced and signed by the officer who charged the cost or 

the officer entitled to receive payment for the cost. Id. art. 103.001.
–3–

The clerk’s records in this appeal did not contain copies of the bills of costs and Shaikh’s 

designations of record on appeal do not request that a copy of the bills of costs be included in the 

records. In light of Shaikh’s specific complaint that the clerk’s records did not contain bills of

costs, we ordered the Dallas County District Clerk to file supplemental clerk’s records containing 

the certified bill of costs associated with each case, and the clerk did so. See TEX. R. APP. P.

34.5(c)(1) (rules of appellate procedure allow supplementation of clerk’s record if relevant item 

has been omitted). Shaikh’s complaints that the evidence is insufficient to support the 

imposition of costs because the clerk’s records do not contain bills of costs are now moot. See 

Coronel v. State, No. 05-12-00493-CR, 2013 WL 3874446, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 29, 

2013, no pet. h.) (citing Franklin v. State, 402 S.W.3d 894, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas, 2013, no

pet.). We resolve Shaikh’s third and fourth issues against him.

In response to the Court’s order requiring supplementation of the records, Shaikh filed a 

motion in which he objects that the bill of costs in each supplemental clerk’s record is not a

“proper bill of costs” and that neither bill of costs was filed in the trial court or brought to the 

trial court’s attention before costs were entered in the judgment. 

With respect to his first objection, Shaikh argues the bill of costs in each record is not a

“proper bill of costs” because it is an “unsigned, unsworn computer printout.” The code of 

criminal procedure requires only that a bill of cost be certified and signed “by the officer who 

charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the cost,” “stating the costs 

that have accrued” if the cause is appealed. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 103.001, .006. 

Here, the district clerk provided a “Bill of Costs Certification” containing the costs that have 

accrued to date in each case; it is certified and signed by the district clerk. We conclude the 

supplemental records filed by the clerk meet the mandate of the code of criminal procedure. See 

Coronel, 2013 WL 3874446, at *4.
–4–

With respect to his second objection, Shaikh argues there is no indication the bill of costs 

in each case was filed in the trial court or brought to the trial court’s attention before costs were 

entered in the judgments. However, there is no requirement that a bill of costs be presented to 

the trial court at any time before judgment. Id. at *5. We deny Shaikh’s motion objecting to the 

supplemental records.

Finally, we note that in his original brief and his objection to the bills of costs, Shaikh

does not challenge the propriety or legality of the specific costs assessed; therefore, we do not 

address these matters.

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed as modified.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

120735F.U05

/Robert M. Fillmore/

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE
–5–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ZAKIR SHAIKH, Appellant

No. 05-12-00735-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 3, Dallas County, Texas,

Trial Court Cause No. F11-00307-J.

Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore, 

Justices O’Neill and Francis participating.

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

as follows:

The section of the trial court’s judgment entitled “Restitution” is modified to state 

$185,503.43.

As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 22nd day of October, 2013.

/Robert M. Fillmore/

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE
–6–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ZAKIR SHAIKH, Appellant

No. 05-12-00736-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 3, Dallas County, Texas,

Trial Court Cause No. F11-00479-J.

Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore, 

Justices O’Neill and Francis participating.

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

as follows:

The section of the trial court’s judgment entitled “Restitution” is modified to state 

$4,051.76.

As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 22nd day of October, 2013.

/Robert M. Fillmore/

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE