In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-19-00266-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1449993D

Before Gabriel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Gabriel

MAHER IBRAHIM HAIFA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Maher Ibrahim Haifa appeals from his conviction for indecency with 

a child and argues that amounts for restitution and probation fees are unsupported in 

the record and must be deleted from the trial court’s judgment. Because neither 

reparations nor probation fees were included in the trial court’s judgment or in the 

attached order to withdraw funds, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 43.2(a).

Haifa pleaded guilty to indecency with a child by contact; the trial court 

deferred adjudicating Haifa’s guilt and sentenced him to community supervision for

seven years. The trial court ordered Haifa to pay a fine and court costs. As a 

condition of his sentence, Haifa was ordered to pay community-supervision fees. 

During the term of his community supervision, the State filed a petition to proceed to 

an adjudication, alleging that Haifa had violated several conditions.

1

 Haifa pleaded 

true to one violation allegation but not true to the remainder. After a hearing, the trial 

court found each allegation to be true, revoked Haifa’s community supervision,

adjudged him guilty of the underlying offense, and sentenced him to eight years’

confinement. 

The resulting judgment reflects “N/A” for the fine and for restitution. The 

trial court made no reparations finding in the judgment. Court costs of $664 were 

1The State did not allege that Haifa had failed to pay ordered fees. 
3

charged against Haifa in the judgment, and this amount is reflected in the attached 

order to withdraw funds from Haifa’s inmate trust account. In two issues, Haifa 

argues that reparations and probation fees could not be charged against him in the 

judgment or included in the attached order to withdraw funds. He relies on a 

Revocation Restitution/Reparation Balance Sheet prepared by Tarrant County’s 

Community Supervision and Corrections Department, reflecting that Haifa owed 

$335 in reparations, which consisted of $155 “DUE TO CSCD” and $180 for

“PROBATION FEES.” He also points to the district clerk’s list of fee breakdowns, 

which shows that Haifa had “0.00” remaining for “Probation Fees” and “Due to 

CSCD.” This conflict in the record, he argues, mandates that this court modify the 

judgment to delete the $335 and $180 amounts. 

Reparations, which included a probation-fee amount, were not charged against 

Haifa in the revocation judgment nor were they included in the attached order to 

withdraw funds. The only amount included in the judgment and attached withdrawal 

order was $664 in court costs. The district clerk prepared a “COURT COSTS 

BREAKDOWN,” itemizing each cost from which the $664 total was derived. Haifa 

does not specifically challenge any of these court costs. Therefore, we overrule 

Haifa’s issues and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See Anderson v. State, No. 03-09-

00630-CR, 2010 WL 2638465, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin July 1, 2010, no pet.) (mem. 

op., not designated for publication); cf. Mayberry v. State, No. 04-18-00463-CR, 2019 

WL 1547444, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Apr. 10, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., 
4

not designated for publication) (modifying judgment to remove fine and restitution 

amounts that had been included as part of court-costs amount because judgment 

provided “N/A” for fine and restitution).

/s/ Lee Gabriel

Lee Gabriel

Justice

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: March 12, 2020