NOS. 12-13-00232-CR

 12-13-00233-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JORGE CUEVAS, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEALS FROM THE 7TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jorge Cuevas appeals his convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child (cause 

number 12-13-00232-CR) and tampering with a governmental record (cause number 12-13-

00233-CR). He raises two issues on appeal relating to the imposition of court costs. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with the felony offenses of aggravated sexual 

assault of a child and tampering with a governmental record. He pleaded guilty to both offenses 

with no agreement on punishment. After a hearing, the trial court found Appellant guilty of both 

offenses. As punishment, the trial court assessed twenty years of imprisonment in the aggravated 

sexual assault of a child case, and five years of imprisonment with a $2,000.00 fine in the

tampering with a governmental record case. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted 

Appellant an out-of-time appeal for both cases, and these appeals followed.1

 

1

See Ex parte Cuevas, Nos. WR-78751-01, WR-78751-02, 2013 WL 2285492, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. 

May 22, 3013) (op., not designated for publication).
2

COURT COSTS

In his first and second issues, Appellant contends that (1) the trial court erred in imposing 

court costs not supported by the statutorily required bill of costs, and (2) there is legally 

insufficient evidence for the trial court to assess court costs in either case. We address 

Appellant’s issues together.

Standard of Review and Applicable Law

The imposition of court 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, No. PD-0193-13, 2014 WL 714736, at *2 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 26, 2014) (citations 

omitted). Thus, when the imposition of court costs is challenged on appeal, we review the 

assessment of costs to determine if there is a basis for the cost, not to determine if there is 

sufficient evidence offered at trial to prove each cost. Id. The traditional Jackson v. Virginia

evidentiary sufficiency principles do not apply. Id.2

If the record on appeal does not include a bill of costs, one can be prepared and added to 

the record in a supplemental clerk’s record. Id. at *4. A convicted defendant has constructive 

notice of mandatory court costs set by statute and may object to the assessment of costs against 

him for the first time on appeal or in a proceeding under article 103.008 of the Texas Code of 

Criminal Procedure. Id. at *2; see also Cardenas v. State, No. PD-0733-13, 2014 WL 714734, 

at *2 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 26, 2014) (citations omitted). A specific amount of court costs need 

not be supported by a bill of costs in the appellate record for the reviewing court to conclude that 

the assessed court costs are supported by facts in the record. Johnson, 2014 WL 714736, at *7. 

But the use of a bill of costs is the most expedient and preferable method to review the 

assessment of court costs. Id. 

Discussion

After Appellant filed his briefs, the record was supplemented in each case with a bill of 

costs. The amounts reflected in the bill of costs for each case correspond with the costs reflected 

in each judgment. Appellant does not challenge a specific cost or basis for the assessment of a 

particular cost. Absent such a challenge, the bill of costs is sufficient to support the assessed 

costs in each case. See Johnson, 2014 WL 714736, at *8. We overrule Appellant’s first and 

second issues.

 

2

See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979).
3

DISPOSITION

Having overruled Appellant’s first and second issues, we affirm the judgment of the trial 

court in each case.

SAM GRIFFITH

Justice

Opinion delivered April 10, 2014.

Panel Consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 10, 2014

NO. 12-13-00232-CR

JORGE CUEVAS,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-2780-06)

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 judgment 

of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.

Sam Griffith, Justice.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 10, 2014

NO. 12-13-00233-CR

JORGE CUEVAS,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-0676-07)

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 judgment 

of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.

Sam Griffith, Justice.

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