## NO. 12

- 17

- 00388

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DEDRICK ERVIN, APPELLANT

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Dedrick Andrea Ervin appeals from his conviction for felony driving while intoxicated. In a single issue, Appellant contends the imposition of court costs is unsupported by the record.
We affirm.

B ACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with felony driving while intoxicated. Appellant pleaded “not guilty.” Following a jury trial, he was found “guilty” and sentenced to twenty years of imprisonment. The judgment reflec ts the imposition of $538.00 in court costs, but at the time it was signed, a bill of costs was not included in the record. After Appellant filed his brief, the record was supplemented with a bill of costs.

S UFFICIENCY OF THE E VIDENCE S UPPORTING C OURT C O STS In his only issue, Appellant contends the trial court erred by imposing court costs because there was no bill of costs, and as a result, the evidence is legally insufficient to support the
assessment of court costs in this case. Because the record wa s supplemented to include a bill of costs, we review Appellant’s issue as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.2

Applicable Law The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires that a judgment of conviction order a defendant to pay court costs. T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. arts. 42.15, 42.16 (West 20 18 ). Only statutorily authorized court costs may be assesse d against a criminal defendant. See id . art. 103.002 (West 20 18 ). The clerk of the trial court is required to keep a fee record, and a

statemen t of an item therein is prima facie evidence of th e correctness of the statement. Id

. ar t. 103.009(a), (c) (West 20 18 ); see Owen v. State
, 352 S.W.3d 542, 548 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2011, no pet.). If a criminal action is transferred or appealed, “an office r of the court shall certify and sign a bill of costs stating the costs that have accrued and send the bill of costs to the court to which the action or proceedi ng is transferred or appealed.” T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 103.006 (West 201 8 ). Article 103.001(b) states that a cost is not payable by the person charged with the cost until a written bill is produced containing the items of costs and signed by the officer who charged the cost or who is entitled to receive payment for the costs. Id

. art. 10 3.001(b) (West 201 8 ). Court costs, as reflected in a certified bill of costs, need not be orally pronounced or incorporated by reference to be effective, because court costs do not alter the range of punishment to which the defendant is subject, or the nu mber of years assessed, and,
thus , are not part of the sentence. Armstrong v. State , 340 S.W.3d 759, 766

– 67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (citing Weir v. State , 278 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)). A criminal defendant may challenge the bases for court c ost s for the first time on appeal. Johnson v. State , 423 S.W.3d 385, 390

– 91 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). In most instances, the appellant would have no basis to object because no itemized bill is available when the sentence is imposed in open court and the ju dgment generally con tains only an aggregate figure. Id

. An omitted bill of costs can be prepared and added to the record by a supplemental clerk’ s record.
Id

. at 392. A document that contains an itemized list of court costs, the clerk’s seal, and a dep uty clerk’s signature satisfies the requirements for a bill of costs under Article 103.001. Id

. at 393. A bill of costs prepared after a criminal trial need not be presented to the trial court because it has no bearing on the defendant’ s guilt or sentenc e. Id

. at 394. The fact that most court costs are mandated by statute dispenses with the need for an ordinary sufficiency review. Id

. at 388

– 90. An appellate court reviews “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 p rove each cost, and traditional Jackson evidentiary

- sufficiency principles do not apply.” Id

. at 390.3

Discussion In the instant case, an itemized list of court costs, bearing th e clerk’s seal and the deputy clerk’s signature, was prepared and added to the record after the appeal was filed. Thus, Article
103.001 is satisfied. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art 103.001. We have verified the statutory basis for each of the ninete en items of court costs assessed against Appellant. See
, e.g., Ireland v. State , No. 03

– 14

– 00616

– CR, 2015 W L 4914982, at *3 n.3 (Tex. App.

— Austin Aug. 12, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (identifying statutory sources for

assess m ent of fees in bill of costs); see also Golden v. State , No. 12

– 16

– 00278

– CR, 2017 WL 3405201 at *3 n.1 (Tex. App.

– Tyler Aug. 9, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Appellant’s sole issue is overruled.

D ISPOSITION Having overruled Ap pellant’s sole issue , we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

J AMES T. W ORTHEN Chief Justice

Opinion delivered June 20, 2018. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PU BLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 20 , 2018

NO. 12

- 17

- 00388

- CR

DEDRICK ERVIN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007

- 1053

- 17) 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.

James T. Worthen , Chief Justice

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