1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-17-00406-CR

____________________

JULIE FAYE MEAD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_________________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 08-05071

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a single issue, Julie Faye Mead appeals from the trial court’s judgment 

ordering her to pay restitution, court costs, and administrative fees without making 

a finding that she had the ability to pay. After our review of the record, we affirm 

the trial court’s judgment. 

Background

In 2011, Mead pled guilty to the offense of theft and was placed on deferred 

adjudication for 10 years. In the trial court’s 2011 order, Mead was ordered to pay 
2

Fines, Court Costs, supervision fees of $60.00 per month, Post Sentence 

Investigation (PSI) fee of $350.00, Attorney Fee of $0.00, Crime Stoppers fee of 

$50.00, and restitution in the amount of $100,000.00. Mead signed the order

acknowledging she received a copy of it. 

In August of 2015, and later in an amended motion filed in July of 2017, the 

State moved to adjudicate her guilt alleging, among other issues, that Mead violated 

the terms of her community supervision when she was convicted of the offense of 

issuance of a Bad Check on June 26, 2017, and that she failed to report to the 

Jefferson County Community Supervision and Corrections Department as required. 

Mead pled “true” to both violations. The trial court adjudicated her guilt and 

sentenced her to 10 years confinement and ordered her to pay administrative fees1

in the amount of $1,440.00, court costs in the amount of $672.00, and restitution in 

the amount of $90,658.00. The trial court certified her right to appeal, and Mead 

timely filed this appeal. While Mead does not contest the trial court’s decision to 

revoke her probation or adjudicate, she contends that the trial court erred when it 

assessed the restitution, court costs, and administrative fees against her because the 

trial court failed to determine if she had the ability to pay the monetary amounts. 

 

1 The administrative fees were identified by the trial court as supervision fees.
3

Analysis

Mead asserts that the trial court erred by ordering her to pay administrative

fees, court costs, and restitution because “the [c]ourt did not find during the hearing 

that she (Mead) was able or had the ability to pay any money amount.” Mead 

contends that the trial court was required to consider her ability to pay “when 

considering a probation revocation based on the failure to pay restitution.” She states

that since she was appointed an attorney to represent her during the revocation, she 

was implicitly found to be indigent by the trial court.

In support of her argument, Mead relies upon Carreon v. State, 548 S.W.3d 

71 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2018, no pet.). In Carreon, the defendant pled guilty 

to two felony counts and was placed on community supervision for 10 years. Id. at 

72–73. The trial court revoked the defendant’s probation citing the defendant’s 

failure to pay restitution as the sole grounds for revocation. Id. at 72. On appeal, the

court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment stating that “the State’s only 

allegation in the motion to revoke was appellant’s failure to pay fees, costs, fines, 

and restitution. The State had the burden to prove appellant failed to do so.” Id. at 

81. Citing the United States Supreme Court, the appellate court held that the trial 

court is required to determine whether the defendant “willfully refused to pay or 

failed to make sufficient bona fide efforts legally to acquire the resources to pay”
4

before it may revoke the defendant’s probation solely on the ground of failure to pay 

fees, costs, fines, and restitution. Id. at 80 (quoting Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 

660, 672–73 (1983)). “To do otherwise would deprive the probationer of his 

conditional freedom, simply because, through no fault of his own, he cannot pay the 

fine[,]. . . contrary to the fundamental fairness required by the Fourteenth 

Amendment.” Id. (quoting Bearden, 461 U.S. at 672–73).

Carreon is inapposite to this case. When the State seeks revocation of 

probation based solely on the failure of the defendant to pay costs and fees as ordered 

under the terms and conditions of the community supervision order, the trial court is 

required to make a finding as to the defendant’s ability to pay. See Tex. Code Crim. 

Proc. Ann. art. 42A.751(i) (West 2018); Martinez v. State, 563 S.W.3d 503, 511 

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2018, no pet.). Here, Mead does not complain that her

probation was revoked because she failed to pay fees and costs as ordered under the 

terms and conditions of her community supervision. Instead, Mead pled “true” to the 

violations that she failed to report to Community Supervision and that she was 

subsequently convicted of issuing a bad check. The trial court adjudicated her guilt 

based on Mead’s “true” statements to the allegations of the State. Therefore, article

42A.751(i) is not applicable. See Tex. Code Crim Proc. Ann. art. 42A.751(i).
5

Administrative Fees 

When addressing the sufficiency of the evidence of a trial court’s award of 

costs and administrative fees, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to 

the award. Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552, 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). In the 2011

deferred adjudication order, the trial court ordered Mead to pay supervision fees in 

the amount of $60.00 per month, a PSI fee of $350.00, and a Crime Stoppers fee of 

$50.00. In the subsequent judgment adjudicating guilt signed by the trial court in 

2017, Mead was ordered to pay, among other fees, $1,440.00 in administrative fees.

Additionally, the record contains a document titled “Revocation 

Restitution/Reparation Balance Sheet” signed by the bookkeeper containing an 

itemized account of the administrative financial obligations imposed when the trial 

court signed its judgment adjudicating guilt in 2017. The balance sheet shows a total 

of $1,440.00 in supervision fees, $0.00 fee for Beaumont Crime Stoppers, and $0.00

fee for PSI. 

“[A] judge who grants community supervision to a defendant shall set a fee 

of not less than $25 and not more than $60 to be paid each month during the period 

of community supervision by the defendant[.]” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 

42A.652 (West 2018). A cost is payable by the person charged with the cost when a 

written bill is produced containing the items of cost and signed by the officer who 
6

charged the cost or who is entitled to receive payment for the cost. Tex. Code Crim. 

Proc. Ann. art. 103.001(b) (West 2018). The community supervision and corrections 

department and the county treasurer are authorized to collect such funds. Tex. Code 

Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 103.003(b) (West 2018).

The fees assessed in this case were authorized by statute. The appellate record 

contains a balance sheet showing that Mead owed an accumulated amount of 

$1,440.00 in supervision fees previously ordered under the 2011 deferred 

adjudication order payable to the Jefferson County Community Supervision and 

Corrections Department and signed by an authorized representative to collect the

fees. Mead presented no evidence that the amount of supervision fees listed in the 

balance sheet was incorrect and did not object to the amount of fees at her hearing.

2

In reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the award of fees, we hold that 

the record supports some basis for the trial court’s determination to assess 

administrative fees totaling $1,440.00 in its order adjudication guilt and hold that the 

trial court did not err when it ordered Mead to pay $1,440.00. See id. We affirm the 

trial court’s judgment as to the administrative fees. 

 

2 Mead did not contest the amount of fees presented to the trial court at the 

hearing. Mead admitted in the trial court that she had not made payments toward her 

“payments or fees” since June 30, 2015. 
7

Court Costs

“A defendant in any criminal action has the right of appeal.” Ex parte 

Broadway, 301 S.W.3d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (citing Tex. Code Crim. 

Proc. Ann. art. 44.02 (West 2018)). “However, a ‘defendant in a criminal 

prosecution for any offense may waive any rights secured him by law.’” Id. (quoting 

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.14 (West 2005)). In 2011, Mead signed the “Trial 

Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal” stating that she has waived 

her right to appeal the 2011 deferred adjudication order. This certification was 

subsequently filed by the trial court. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2) (requiring a trial 

court to enter the certification of the defendant’s right to appeal.). This certification 

was included in the appellate record. See id. 25.2(a)(2), (d). The appellate record 

does not show that Mead attempted to appeal the 2011 deferred adjudication order. 

In its judgment adjudicating guilt signed in 2017, the trial court ordered Mead 

to pay court costs in the amount of $672.00.

3 In our review of the record, we note 

that there are two certified bills of costs submitted by the District Clerk outlining the 

court costs associated with this case. In a certified bill of costs filed on March 14, 

 

3 The total amount of the court costs from Mead’s 2011 deferred adjudication

order was $293.00. The court costs assessed in the 2017 judgment adjudicating guilt

totaled $379.00. The sum of the two amounts is $672.00, the amount the trial court 

ordered Mead to pay in court costs in its 2017 judgment adjudicating guilt order. 
8

2011, which was the same date as the signed order for deferred adjudication filed by 

the trial court, the District Clerk provided an itemized account of fines and costs 

associated with the deferred adjudication of Mead’s felony theft case showing a 

balance of $293.00. Mead was required to timely appeal the assessment of any court 

costs associated with the 2011 deferred adjudication order at that time. See Perez v. 

State, 424 S.W.3d 81, 85–86 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) ( “Appellant’s waiver of his 

right to appeal does not excuse his failure to appeal the assessment of court costs at 

the time of the original imposition of community supervision.”). An appellant who

has knowledge of costs when placed on community supervision cannot later raise 

those issues on appeal when the community supervision is revoked. See Riles v. 

State, 452 S.W.3d 333, 338 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). “Appellant filed no appeal until 

her community supervision was revoked two years later. We made clear in Manuel

and Wiley that those issues that an appellant can raise in a direct appeal from the 

initial judgment must be raised, and that failing to do so results in procedural 

default.” Id. (citing Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661–662 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1999); Wiley v. State, 410 S.W.3d 313, 320–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)). Therefore, 

we conclude that Mead waived her right to appeal the court costs of $293.00 ordered 

in conjunction with the deferred adjudication order signed in 2011. This Court lacks 
9

jurisdiction to review the $293.00 in court costs for the first time on appeal after the 

trial court order adjudicated Mead’s guilt six years later.

The record includes a certified bill of costs signed by the District Clerk on 

October 6, 2017, reflecting total court costs in the amount of $379.00. This bill of 

costs outlines the District Clerk’s total costs and fines associated with the trial 

court’s revocation of Mead’s community supervision and adjudicating her guilt.

While we hold that Mead has waived the right to challenge the court costs ordered

in the 2011 deferred adjudication order, the trial court certified Mead’s right to 

appeal the judgment adjudicating guilt, including costs assessed with the proceeding,

and Mead has timely appealed the court costs assessed in that order.

A defendant convicted of a felony is statutorily required to pay certain costs 

associated with a conviction for a felony. See, e.g., Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 

102.001–.142 (West 2013, West Supp. 2018) (setting forth various court costs that 

a convicted person “shall” pay.). “The obligation of a convicted person to pay court 

costs is established by statute.” Solomon v. State, 392 S.W.3d 309, 310 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 2012, no pet.) (citations omitted). The Code of Criminal Procedure 

mandates that judgments of conviction assess costs against the defendant. See Tex. 

Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 42.15, 42.16 (West 2018); see also Johnson v. State, 

423 S.W.3d 385, 389 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Thus, a trial court is not required to 
10

determine a defendant’s ability to pay statutorily authorized court costs associated 

with the conviction. 

“Only statutorily authorized court costs may be assessed against a criminal 

defendant[.]” Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 389 (citations omitted). “[C]ourt costs are not 

part of the guilt or sentence of a criminal defendant, nor must they be proven at trial; 

rather, they are ‘a nonpunitive recoupment of the costs of judicial resources 

expended in connection with the trial of the case.’” Id. at 390 (quoting Armstrong v. 

State, 340 S.W.3d 759, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011)). Therefore, a reviewing court 

must “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. A clerk of a court is required to keep a fee record, and a statement 

of an item in the fee record is prima facie evidence of the correctness of the 

statement. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 103.009(a), (c) (West 2018); see also

Owen v. State, 352 S.W.3d 542, 547 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011, no pet.). A 

defendant may challenge the assessed court costs for the first time on appeal, 

including costs associated with deferred adjudication. Perez, 424 S.W.3d at 85–86. 

The bill of costs certifies total costs and fines of $379.00 and contains a 

detailed itemized list of specified costs assessed by the District Clerk. Mead has 

failed to identify or challenge any specific costs calculated by the District Clerk that 
11

are alleged to be incorrect. “Absent a challenge to a specific cost or basis for the 

assessment of that cost, a bill of costs is sufficient.” Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 396. 

Therefore, we decline to undertake any further review of the correctness of the 

District Clerk’s bill of costs due to Mead’s failure to identify a basis for challenging 

any specific cost and affirm the total amount of court costs of $672.00 ordered by 

the trial court.

4

Restitution

The record reflects that Mead was ordered to pay $100,000.00 in restitution 

when she was placed on deferred adjudication in 2011. As we have previously stated, 

Mead signed the “Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal” 

acknowledging that she waived her right to appeal the deferred adjudication.

However, Mead was still charged with the duty to object to and seek review of any 

restitution ordered at the time she was placed on deferred adjudication, and Mead is 

now barred from raising any issue regarding restitution on appeal after the order of 

 4 We note that the trial court did not include the 2017 court cost assessed by the 

District Clerk in its oral pronouncement. “The judgment, including the sentence 

assessed, is just the written declaration and embodiment of that oral 

pronouncement.” Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). If 

there is a conflict between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the written 

judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. Id. Court costs, however, are not 

punitive and do not have to be included in the oral pronouncement as a precondition 

to their inclusion in the written judgment. Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2009).
12

revocation.

5 See Perez, 424 S.W.3d at 85–86. We affirm the trial court’s award of 

restitution in this case.

Conclusion

Having overruled Appellant’s single issue on appeal, we affirm the judgment 

of the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

_________________________

 CHARLES KREGER

 Justice

Submitted on October 2, 2018

Opinion Delivered May 1, 2019

Do Not Publish 

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

 

5 Mead did not object to the restitution amount at the 2017 hearing revoking her 

deferred adjudication and acknowledged that the she owed the restitution. Mead 

requested the trial court allow her to remain on deferred adjudication, enabling her 

to continue to make payments on the restitution.