COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JOSE L. ALDANA,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-13-00243-CR

Appeal from

396th District Court

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC # 1333327R)

O P I N I O N

This appeal arises out of Appellant’s conviction on three counts of indecency with a 

child. Because his only issues for review pertain to the monetary fine which was assessed, and

the Bill of Costs, we limit our discussion of the facts to those discrete issues. 

FACTUAL SUMMARY

Appellant was charged with two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child (Counts 

One and Two of the indictment) and three counts of indecency with a child (Counts Three, Four,

and Five). He was acquitted on the two aggravated sexual assault counts, but convicted on all 

three indecency counts (Counts Three, Four, and Five). The jury assessed a sixteen-year 

sentence and a $3,000 fine on each of the indecency counts. The judgments of conviction for 

Counts Three, Four, and Five require the sentences to run concurrently. The judgment for Count 

Three assesses a $3,000 fine and taxes an itemized Bill of Costs totaling $654, making the total 
2

amount due $3,654. An order to withdraw funds, which is expressly incorporated into the 

judgment, directs the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to withdraw on a percentage formula 

basis, $3,654 from Appellant’s account until the total sum is paid. The judgments for Counts 

Four and Five also assess the $3,000 fine, but do not assess any court costs. The judgments of 

conviction for Counts Four and Five also include an order to withdraw funds for the respective 

$3,000 fines attributed to each count. 

Appellant brings three issues for review. In Issue One, he contends that we should 

reform two of the judgments to delete the $3,000 fine because when the jail sentences run 

concurrently, the fines must also run concurrently. In Issue Two, Appellant complains that the 

Bill of Costs is defective. Finally, in Issue Three, he argues that the Bill of Costs should be 

reformed to delete the requirement that court costs must be paid as a condition of parole. 

DUPLICATIVE FINES

Fines which are part of concurrent sentences should also “run” concurrently. State v. 

Crook, 248 S.W.3d 172, 174 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008). The holding in Crook is based on TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 3.03(a)(West Supp. 2014), which in relevant part provides that “sentences 

shall run concurrently” when “the accused is found guilty of more than one offense arising out of 

the same criminal episode prosecuted in a single criminal action.” Id. The sentences for certain 

crimes, such as Appellant was convicted of here, can run either concurrently or consecutively. 

Id. at § 3.03(b)(2). The trial judge here ordered the sentence to run concurrently, and we accept 

the State’s concession that the fines should similarly run concurrently, in the sense that if 

Appellant pays one fine, he pays them all.

The State suggests that there is no proof that the Texas Department of Corrections will 

treat the three fines cumulatively, no more so than it would treat his sentence cumulatively. It 
3

further responds that we should not modify the order to withdraw funds because it is a civil 

matter. Finally, the State alleges that any ambiguity in the judgments of conviction should have 

been raised in the trial court. 

There is perhaps some ambiguity in the judgments with regard to the fines. The court 

costs are included in only one judgment, but the fines appear in all three, even though both the 

fines and court costs are intended to be treated the same (i.e. taxed concurrently). And as the 

Texas Court of Criminal Court of Appeals alluded to in Crook, it is natural to say that a sentence 

runs concurrently, because of the temporal element of a prison sentence. Id. at 175. But paying 

a fine concurrently is perhaps not as intuitive a concept. In an ideal world, the clerks and 

functionaries with the Texas Department of Corrections would understand the import of State v. 

Crook. But as a jurist once noted, “it is always probable that something improbable will 

happen.” Warren v. Purtell, 63 Ga. 428, 430 (1879). Accordingly, we reform the judgments of 

conviction for Counts Four and Five to delete the $3,000 fine reflected in each. TEX.R.APP.P.

43.2(b)(“The court of appeals may: . . . (b) modify the trial court’s judgment and affirm it as 

modified.”). The $3,000 fine for Count Three remains in place, and Appellant asserts no other 

ground to with regard to that Count.

We generally agree with the State that orders to withdraw funds are essentially 

civil matters falling outside the scope of our jurisdiction in a criminal appeal. See Lewis v. State, 

No. 05-12-00844-CR, 2014 WL 31690 at *7 (Tex.App.--Dallas Jan. 6 2014, pet. ref’d)(mem. op. 

not designated for publication)(“The withdrawal order is not a criminal matter; it stems from a 

civil proceeding that is separate and independent from the judgment that assessed appellant's 

conviction and sentence.”), citing Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 317-19 (Tex. 2009) and In 

re Johnson, 280 S.W.3d 866, 873-74 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008). The order to withdraw funds in 
4

Counts Four and Five, however, are expressly incorporated into the judgments of conviction and 

became part of it. Having reformed the judgments of convictions in Four and Five to delete the 

$3,000 fine, the orders to withdraw funds are necessarily mooted.

CHALLENGE TO THE BILL OF COST

“A cost is not payable by the person charged with the cost until a written bill is produced 

or is ready to be produced, containing the items of cost, signed by the officer who charged the 

cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the cost.” TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 

103.001 (West 2006). A cost bill is not essential to tax court costs against a criminal defendant, 

but it is favored and preferred. Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex.Crim.App. 2014) 

(holding there is no requirement for challenging costs with the trial court). 

Appellant here claims that the Bill of Costs is defective because the itemized charges are 

identified only by shorthand abbreviations which are undecipherable (i.e. “DC Rec Pre&Auto,” 

“PO Commit/Rel,” “Jud Support-CRM,” “CCC-Felony”). He concedes that the Fort Worth 

Court of Appeals has heard and rejected this same complaint.1 Lawrence v. State, 420 S.W.3d 

329 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth, 2014, pet. ref’d); Cranfill v. State, No. 02-13-00567-CR, 2014 WL 

4946979 *1 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth, Oct. 2, 2014, no pet.)(mem. op., not designated for 

publication)(noting abbreviations in Bill of Cost correlated to statutorily imposed fees and 

charges). We further reject Appellant’s claim that the abbreviations deny him due process for 

lack of fair notice. As noted in Johnson v. State, the mandatory costs are fixed by published 

statutes which give criminal defendants constructive notice of their provisions. 423 S.W.3d at 

389. Accordingly, we overrule Issue Two.

 

1

 In this transferred appeal, we are obliged to follow the precedents of the Fort Worth Court of Appeals. See

TEX.R.APP.P. 41.3. 
5

In Issue Three, Appellant complains that the Bill of Costs erroneously requires that any

unpaid portion must be paid as a condition of parole (“Any amounts reflected above that are 

unpaid at the time of parole shall be paid as a condition of parole.”). Setting conditions of parole

is a power reserved to the executive branch, rather than the judiciary. Ceballos v. State, 246 

S.W.3d 369, 373 (Tex.App.--Austin 2008, pet ref’d). The judiciary can only make 

recommendations regarding conditions of parole. Id. The State concedes this error and requests 

that we reform the Bill of Costs to remove that condition. See Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725, 

728 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 2005, no pet.)(noting authority to reform judgment which improperly

required payment of attorney’s fees as condition of obtaining parol). 

We therefore modify the judgment of conviction for Counts Four and Five to delete the 

$3,000 fine in each of those judgments. We grant relief under Issue Three to the extent that we 

reform the judgment of conviction for Count Three to delete from the Bill of Cost the following 

statement: “Any amounts reflected above that are unpaid at the time of parole shall be paid as a 

condition of parole.” We affirm the judgments as modified.

May 14, 2015

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)