## NO S . 12

- 16

- 00110

- CR 12

- 16

- 00111

- CR 12

- 16

- 00112

- CR 12

- 16

- 00113

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

LATISH A LEANN WHITE, APPELLANT

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 114T H

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Latisha Leann White appeals the trial court’s judgments revoking community supervision
in fou r cases that are consolidated on appeal. Appellant argues that the judgments impose unconstitutional court costs, and that one judgment contains a typographical error. We affirm.

B ACKGROUND Appellant was charged by four indictments with criminal mischie f, possession of a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance in a drug free zone, and tampering with physical evidence. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement with the State, Appellant pleaded “guilty” to the offenses, and the trial court a ssessed her punishment in each case at imprisonment for ten years, suspended for a period of ten years. Subsequently, the State filed applications to revoke Appellant’s community supervision
in each case. The State abandoned two allegations at the revoca tion hearing, and Appellant pleaded true to the remaining allegations. After giving both parties an opportunity to present evidence and arguments, the trial court granted the applications to revoke and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for e ight years in each case. This appeal followed.2 C OURT C OSTS In each of Appellant’s cases, she argues that this Court should modify the trial court’s judgment and withdrawal order to remove unconstitutional court costs. Applicable Law The imposition of c ourt costs upon a criminal defendant is a “nonpunitive recoupment of the costs of judicial resources expended in connection with the trial of the case.” Johnson v.
State , 423 S.W.3d 385, 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The consolidated fee statute requires a defendant to pay a court cost of $133 on conviction of a felony. T EX

. L OC

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 133.102( a )(1) ( West Supp. 2016). The money received is divided among a variety of state government accounts according to percentages dictated by the statute. S ee id. § 133.102( e) ( West Supp. 2016); Salinas v. State , No. PD

- 0170

- 16, 2017 WL 915525, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 8, 2017). The court of criminal appeals has held the statute unconstitutional with respect to two
of these accounts: an account for “abuse d children’s counseling” and an account for “comprehensive rehabilitation.” See Salinas , 2017 WL 915525, at *1. As a result, the court held that any fee assessed pursuant to the statute must be reduced pro rata to eliminate the percentage of the fee asso ciated with these accounts. Id. The court further held that its holding applies only to (1) a defendant who raised the appropriate claim in a petition for discretionary review before the date of the court’s opinion, if that petition is still pending on t hat date and the claim would otherwise be properly before the court on discretionary review, or (2) a defendant
whose trial ends after the mandate in Salinas issues. Id. at *6. Analysis Here, the bills of costs show that the $133 consolidated fee was ass essed in each case. However, because (1) no petition for discretionary review is pending on Appellant’s claim, and (2) the proceedings in the trial court ended on April 14, 2016

— well before the court of criminal appeals’s decision in Salinas

— the court’s ho lding in that case does not apply. See id. Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s issue in each case regarding the consolidated fee statute. Appellant further argues that the judgment revoking community supervision in cause
number 12

- 16

- 00113

- CR contains a typographical error, and that we should modify the judgment and withdrawal order to correct the error. The State contends that we cannot discern from the record whether the discrepancy resulted from a typographical error, and that the proper
means to add ress the issue is for Appellant to file a motion for a judgment nunc pro tunc in the3

trial court. We construe Appellant’s claim as a challenge to the bases for the assessed court costs
and consider the merits of the issue. See Johnson , 423 S.W.3d at 391.
The bill of costs in cause number 12

- 16

- 00113

- CR reflects a total of $284 in costs, while the judgment revoking community supervision shows a total of $289. We review the assessment of court costs on appeal to determine if there is a basis for the cost, not to determine if there was sufficient evidence offered at trial to prove each cost. Id. at 390. A specific amount of court costs need not be supported by a bill of costs in the appellate record for a reviewing court to
conclude that the assessed cour t costs are supported by facts in the record. Id. at 395. Under the electronic filing fee statute, a defendant is required to pay $5 as a court cost on conviction of any criminal offense in a district court, county court, or statutory county court.
T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 51.851( d) ( West Supp. 2016). The bill of costs in this case does not show that the $5 electronic filing fee is included in the $284. Therefore, there is a basis in the record for the additional $5 cost reflected in the judgment. See J ohnson , 423 S.W.3d at 390. Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s issue regarding the purported typographical error.

D ISPOSITION Having overruled all of Appellant’s issues, we affirm the trial court’s judgment s

.

J AMES T. W ORTHEN Chief Justice
Opinion del ivered May 24 , 2017. 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

MAY 24 , 2017

NO. 12

- 16

- 00110

- CR

LATISHA LEANN WHITE,

Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114

- 0454

- 13) 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 t hat 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.

James T. Worthen , Chief Justice

. Pa nel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 24 , 2017

NO. 12

- 16

- 0011 1

- CR

LATISHA LEANN WHITE,

Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114

- 0455

- 13) 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 there fore 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.

James T. Worthen, Chief Justice

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neel ey, J.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 24 , 2017

NO. 12

- 16

- 0011 2

- CR

LATISHA LEANN WHITE,

Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114

- 0456

- 13) 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 judgmen t of the court below be in all things affirmed , and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance.

James T. Worthen, Chief Justice

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEA LS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 24 , 2017

NO. 12

- 16

- 0011 3

- CR

LATISHA LEANN WHITE,

Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114

- 0457

- 13) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the app ellate 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.

James T. Worthen, Chief Justice

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.