## NO. 12

- 23

- 00149 -CR

IN THE COUR T OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

DEKEIDRIAN KESHUN ROLLINS , APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 349TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HOUSTON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Dekeidrian Keshun Rollins appeals the revocation of his community supervision. In his sole issue, Appellant argues the bill of costs erroneously reflects he must repay his court appointed attorney’s fees. We modify the bill of costs and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

B A CKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated robbery . Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pleaded “guilty” and wa s placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for eight years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adju d icate Appellant’s guilt. After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion and assessed Appellant’s punishment at

tw enty years confi nement. This appeal followed.2 B ILL OF C OSTS In his sole issue, Appellant argues that the bill of costs contains an in a ccurate assessment of costs. Specifically, he urges that the bill of costs incorrectly requires him to reimburse his

court- appointed a tt orney ’s fees. He contends we should modify the bill of costs to delete those fees. The State agrees, and so do we.
At the hearing, the trial court assessed costs “as calculated by the clerk.” The clerk later
submitted a “Revocation Bill of Costs” that in cluded $3 6 7 in court costs , $675 in attorney ’s fees , and $50 in restitution. The original judgment stated that Appellan t “has financial resources that enable [Appellant] to offset in part or in whole the cost of the legal services provided to [Appella nt]” a nd further orders Appellant to pay the court appointed attorney ’ s fees in his case. However, the trial court has sinc e entered a nunc pro tunc judgment that deleted this special finding and lists only $367 in court costs. The bill of costs has not been c orrected to reflect the nunc pro tunc judgment. “A defendant who is determined by the court to be indigent is presumed to remain indigent for the remainder of the proceedings in the case unless a material change in the
defendant’ s financial circumstances o ccurs.” T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC A NN

. art. 26.04(p) (West Supp. 2023 ); see Fulmer v. State , 401 S.W.3d 305, 318 –19 (Tex. App.– San Antonio 2013, pet.
ref ’ d) (holding trial court erred in ordering indigent criminal defendant to pay court -appointed attorney’ s fe es absent evidence of a material change in financial circumstances). Here, nothing
in the record shows a material cha n ge in Appellant ’ s financial circumstances since counsel was appointed to represent him. Absent a showing of a material change in A ppellant’ s financial circumstances, it was error for the district clerk to assess attorney ’ s fees against Appellant in t he
bi ll of costs. See Benavidez v. State , 423 S.W.3d 520, 522 (Tex. App.

– San Antonio 2014, no pet.). Because the assessment of attorney ’ s fees against Appellant was erroneous, it must be corrected. Accordingly, we reform the bill of costs to delete the asse ssm e nt of attorney ’ s fees.
See Green v. State , No. 04 –13–00018– CR, 2013 WL 6200328, at *2 (Tex. App.

– San Antonio Nov. 27, 2013, no pe t.) (me m. op., not designated for publication) (reforming both judgment and bill of costs to delete assessment of attorney ’ s f ees against indigent criminal defendant). We sustain Appellant’s sole issue.3 D ISPOSITION Based on the foregoing, we modify the trial c ourt’s bill of costs by deleting the assessment of attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s nunc pro tunc judgmen t.

J AMES T. W ORTHEN Chief Justice
Opinion delivered February 22, 2024. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXA S

JUDGMENT

F EBRUARY 22, 2024

NO. 12-23-00149- CR

DEKEIDRIAN KESHUN ROLLINS , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from t he 349th District Court
of Houston County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 21CR-075) THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellat e record and t h e briefs filed herein, and the same being inspected, it is the opinion of the Court that the bill o f cost s of the tr ial cou rt below should be modified

. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the bill of

costs of the court be lo w be modified t o delete the assessment o f attorney ’ s fees ; the trial court’s nunc pro tunc judgment is affirmed ; and that this decision be certified to the trial court below for
observance.

J ames T. Worthe n, Chief J ustice

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