## 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

Tarra nt County, Texas Trial Court No. 1449993D
Before Gabriel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ. Memorandum O pini on by Just ice G abriel 

### M AHE R 

### I BRAHIM 

### H AIFA 

### , Appellant

V


### . T HE 

### S TATE O F 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Maher Ibrahim Haifa appeals from his conviction for indecency with
a child a nd argues that amounts fo r restitution and proba tion fees are unsupported in
the record and must be deleted from the trial cour t ’ s j udgment. Because neither reparation s nor probation fees were includ ed in the trial court ’ s judgment or in the
attached order to w

ithdraw funds, we aff

irm the trial court ’ s judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(a). Haifa pleaded guilty to indecency wit h a child by c ontact ; the tri al court deferred adjudicating Haifa ’ s guilt and sentenced him to community sup ervi sion for

seven years. T he trial co urt ordered Haifa to pay a fi ne and cou rt costs. A s a condition of his sentence, Haifa was ordered to pa y co mmunity

- supervision fees. During the term of his community supervision, the State filed a petition to proce ed to an adjudic at

i on, alleg ing that Ha ifa had violated several conditions

. 1 Haifa pleaded

t rue to one violation allegation but not tr ue to the rem ainder. After a hearing, the tri al court found each allegation to be true, revoked Haifa ’ s community sup er vision, adjudged him guilty of the underlying off ense, an d sentenced him to ei ght years ’
confinement.
The resulting judgment ref le cts “ N/A ” fo r th e fine and for restitution. The
trial court made no reparations finding in the judgment

. Co urt costs of $664 were

1 T he State di d not allege that Haifa had fa iled to pay ordered fees.3

charged against Haifa in the jud gment , and this amount is reflected in the attached
order to withdraw funds from Haifa ’ s inmate trust ac co u n t. In two issues , Hai fa argues that reparation s and probation fee s could not be charged against him in the judgment o r included in th e attached order to withdraw funds

. He re lies on a Revocation Restitution/Reparation Balance Sheet pre pared by Tarran t Co unty ’ s Community Supervision and Corrections De p artment, ref lecting that Haifa owed $335 in reparati ons, which consi sted of $155 “ D UE TO CSCD ” and $180 for

“ PROBATION FEES. ” H e a lso points to the dis trict clerk ’ s list of fee breakdowns,
which sho ws th at H aifa had “ 0.00 ” remaining for “ P robati on F ees ” and “ Due to
CSCD. ” This conflict in the record, he a rgues, mandates that this court modify the judgment to delete the $335 and $180 am ounts. Reparations, which included a probation

- fee amount, wer e not cha rged aga inst Haifa in the revocation j udgment nor w ere th ey inclu ded in the att ached 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
B REAK DOW N , ” itemizing each cost from which the $664 total was derived. Hai fa does not spec i fically chall enge any of these court costs. Therefore, we overrule
Haifa ’ s issues and affirm the tr ial court ’ s judgment. See Anderson v. State , No. 03

- 09

- 00630

- CR, 201 0 W L 2638465, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Austin July 1, 2010, no pet.) (mem.
op. , not designated for publication); c f. Maybe rry v. State , No. 04

- 18

- 00463

- CR, 2019 WL 1547444, at *1

– 2 (Tex. App.

— S a n Antonio Apr. 10, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.,4

not designated for pu blic a ti on) ( modifying judgment to remove fine and restitution

amounts that had been includ ed 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: Ma rch 1 2 , 2020