Court Opinion

ID: 9891300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 06:09:29.437295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:58.895321
License: Public Domain

AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Opinion Filed October 10, 2023

                                          S   In The
                                 Court of Appeals
                          Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                     No. 05-22-00328-CR
                                     No. 05-22-00329-CR
                                     No. 05-22-00330-CR
                                     No. 05-22-00331-CR

                           WILLIE JAMES JONES, Appellant
                                       V.
                           THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                  On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court
                               Dallas County, Texas
                 Trial Court Cause Nos. F21-62050-M, F17-52308-M,
                          F17-52309-M, and F17-52310-M

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION
                        Before Justices Carlyle, Smith, and Kennedy
                                 Opinion by Justice Smith

         Appellant, Willie James Jones, appeals his convictions for unlawful

possession of a firearm by a felon,1 evading arrest and detention,2 tampering with

physical evidence,3 and knowingly possessing cocaine in the amount of four grams

   1
       Trial Court Cause No. F21-62050-M; Appellate Cause No. 05-22-00328-CR.
   2
       Trial Court Cause No. F17-52308-M; Appellate Cause No. 05-22-00329-CR.
   3
       Trial Court Cause No. F17-52309-M; Appellate Cause No. 05-22-00330-CR.
                                                –1–
or more but less than 200 grams with the intent to deliver. 4 His appellate counsel

has filed a brief and motions to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Because we agree that the appeal is frivolous, we grant counsel’s

motions to withdraw and affirm the judgments of conviction as modified.

                               Background and Procedural History

         In 2017, Appellant entered an open plea of guilty to the state-jail felony

offense of evading arrest and detention with a prior conviction for the same offense,5

the third-degree felony offense of tampering with physical evidence,6 and the first-

degree felony offense of knowingly possessing cocaine in the amount of four grams

or more but less than 200 grams with the intent to deliver.7 Appellant also pleaded

true to two prior felony convictions in the evading arrest case, making it punishable

as a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 12.425(b), 38.04(b)(1). The

State waived the enhancement paragraphs to the other charges. In each of his plea

agreements, appellant judicially confessed to the charged offense and relevant

enhancement paragraphs. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed

appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for a term of ten years in

each case. In response to the State filing motions to proceed with an adjudication of

   4
       Trial Court Cause No. F17-52310-M; Appellate Cause No. 05-22-00331-CR.
   5
       See TEX. PENAL CODE § 38.04(a), (b)(1).
   6
       See id. § 37.09(a)(1), (c).
   7
     See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.112(a), (d); see also id. § 481.102(3)(D) (listing cocaine as
a controlled substance in Penalty Group 1).
                                                 –2–
guilt on several occasions, the trial court modified appellant’s conditions of

community supervision to include participation in the Intensive Intervention

Program and confinement in the Substance Abuse Treatment and Cognitive

Intervention Track Programs at a State of Texas Contracted Intermediate Sanction

Facility. Ultimately, the trial court proceeded to adjudicate appellant in 2022, after

the State filed another amended motion to proceed with adjudication.

      The State also charged appellant with committing the new third-degree

offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. See TEX. PENAL CODE §

46.04(a), (e). The trial court held a combined plea and punishment hearing on the

new offense, as well as on the three offenses proceeding to adjudication. Appellant

entered an open plea of guilty to the new offense and a plea of true to the first

enhancement paragraph; the State struck the second enhancement paragraph. The

enhancement made the unlawful possession of a firearm charge punishable as a

second-degree felony, instead of a third-degree felony, with a range of punishment

from two to twenty years of incarceration. See id. §§ 12.33(a), 12.42(a). As part of

his open plea, appellant signed a judicial confession admitting to the charged offense

and the enhancement paragraph.

      Appellant also pleaded true to the State’s alleged violations of community

supervision on the cases proceeding to adjudication. After hearing evidence from

both parties, including testimony from appellant, the trial court found appellant

violated the terms of community supervision as alleged and found appellant guilty

                                         –3–
of each of the four offenses. The trial court assessed appellant’s punishment at fifty

years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice for the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm and the offense of

possession with intent to deliver cocaine and to ten years’ confinement for the

offense of evading arrest and the offense of tampering with evidence. Appellant’s

sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

      The trial court reopened the punishment hearing the next day, after it realized

it had mistakenly assessed appellant’s punishment (fifty years) for the offense of

unlawful possession of a firearm outside of the second-degree felony range of two

to twenty years. The trial court initially thought there were two enhancement

paragraphs at issue, instead of one. The trial court resentenced appellant to ten years’

confinement for the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm. Appellant filed a

motion for new trial in each case. The motions were either expressly denied by the

trial court or denied by operation of law. See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.8(a), (c).

      The trial court certified appellant’s right to appeal in each case. On appeal,

appointed counsel filed motions to withdraw, supported by an Anders brief.

                                        Anders

      An Anders brief is a brief filed in support of an appointed attorney’s motion

to withdraw from an appeal that the attorney has concluded is wholly frivolous.

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Such decision should be made only after counsel, in his

role as an advocate for his client, has conducted a conscientious examination of the

                                          –4–
entire record. Id. When court-appointed counsel files an Anders brief asserting that

no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must independently examine the record to

determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Id.

      Appellate counsel initially filed an Anders brief in each of the four cases.

Because counsel failed to comply with certain requirements under the Anders

procedure, we struck three of the briefs, as well as an amended brief, which

combined counsel’s Anders analysis for all four cases. Subsequently, appellate

counsel filed a second, single amended Anders brief addressing each of appellant’s

four convictions. This second amended brief establishes counsel’s diligent review

of the record, including each stage of the proceeding, such as the indictments, plea

agreements, trial court’s acceptance of appellant’s guilty pleas, State’s motions to

proceed to adjudication, plea and motion to proceed hearings, punishment trial, and

resentencing, as well as the voluntariness of appellant’s pleas and the trial court’s

assessment of punishment. Counsel cited relevant law and provided record citations

in his review. Based on counsel’s professional evaluation of the record, counsel

determined that there are no legal or factual issues that might arguably support an

appeal.

      Counsel also advised that he provided appellant with a copy of the brief and

informed him of his rights to review the record, file a pro se brief, and seek

discretionary review should this Court conclude the appeal is frivolous. See Kelly v.

State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This Court also provided notice

                                        –5–
to appellant of his right to file a pro se response and petition for discretionary review.

To this date, appellant has not filed a pro se brief. The State filed a letter brief

agreeing with appellant’s counsel that an appeal of these cases is frivolous and

without merit because no reversible error appears in the record.

       We conclude that counsel’s brief and motions meet the requirements of

Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why

there are no arguable grounds for relief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510

n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–12 (Tex. Crim.

App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Additionally, we have independently reviewed the record

and conclude there are no arguable grounds to present on appeal. See Anders, 386

U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and

without merit.

                      Modification of Judgments and Bills of Costs

       Although not arguable issues to present on appeal,8 the trial court’s judgment

in Cause No. F21-62050-M does not accurately reflect the proceedings below and

none of the judgments or bills of costs accurately reflect the amount of costs

authorized to be assessed against appellant in these cases. This Court has the power

to modify a judgment to speak the truth when we have the necessary information to

   8
     See, e.g., Carreon v. State, No. 05-19-00852-CR, 2021 WL 2603700, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas June
24, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (correcting judgment to reflect appellant
entered an open plea); Blais v. State, Nos. 05-20-00556, 00602-CR, 2021 WL 2010269, at *3 (Tex. App.—
Dallas May 20, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (deleting Court’s assessment of
duplicative costs from judgment).
                                                 –6–
do so. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991,

pet. ref’d) (en banc).

      In Cause No. F21-62050-M (unlawful possession of a firearm), the judgment

shows that the terms of appellant’s plea bargain with the State included an agreed

sentence of “10 YEARS TDCJ”; however, the record reflects that appellant’s plea

was open on punishment. Accordingly, we modify the judgment in Cause No. F21-

62050-M to delete “10 YEARS TDCJ” from the section entitled “Terms of Plea

Bargain” and replace it with “Open.”

      We next turn to the issue of costs. The imposition of certain court costs is

mandatory upon conviction and should be reflected in the judgment. See TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. art. 42.16. However, a cost cannot be imposed for a service not

performed or for a service for which a cost is not expressly provided by law. Id. art.

103.002. As we explained in Shuler v. State, several cost related statutes were

amended by the legislature in 2019. 650 S.W.3d 683, 687–91 (Tex. App.—Dallas

2022, no pet.); see also Contreras v. State, Nos. 05-20-00185, 00186-CR, 2021 WL

6071640, at *5–9 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 23, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op. on reh’g,

not designated for publication). The new cost structure, set forth in the amended

statutes, became effective on January 1, 2020, and applies only to offenses

committed on or after that date. Shuler, 650 S.W.3d at 687–91; Contreras, 2021

WL 6071640, at *5–9. Here, three of the offenses were alleged to occur in 2017—

                                         –7–
Cause Nos. F17-52308-M (evading arrest), F17-52309-M (tampering), and F17-

52310-M (possession with intent to deliver).       Thus, the changes that became

effective on January 1, 2020, do not apply to three of appellant’s convictions.

      Additionally, the court does not have authority to assess costs against a

defendant in each case when the cases are tried together: “In a single criminal action

in which a defendant is convicted of two or more offenses or of multiple counts of

the same offense, the court may assess each court cost or fee only once against the

defendant.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 102.073(a). “For purposes of this rule, a

person convicted of two or more offenses in the same trial or plea proceeding is

convicted of those offenses in a ‘single criminal action.’” Shuler, 650 S.W.3d at 690

(citing Hurlburt v. State, 506 S.W.3d 199, 201–04 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, no

pet.)). The code provides that “each court cost or fee the amount of which is

determined according to the category of offense must be assessed using the highest

category of offense that is possible based on the defendant’s convictions.” TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 102.073(b).

      Here, each of the four clerk’s records contain a March 25, 2022 bill of costs

even though appellant was convicted of the four offenses in a single proceeding. The

judgment in Cause No. F21-62050-M (unlawful possession of a firearm) is the only

judgment that indicates appellant was ordered to pay court costs; the remaining

judgments show “$ N/A” under the section entitled “Court Costs.” Pursuant to the

code of criminal procedure, court costs should have been assessed against appellant

                                         –8–
in Cause No. F17-52310-M (possession with intent to deliver) because it is the case

with the highest category offense, a first-degree felony. See id.; see also TEX.

HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 481.102(3)(D), 481.112(a), (d). The March 25, 2022

bill of costs in Cause No. F17-52310-M provides the following fee descriptions and

amounts assessed:

           Clerk’s Fee                           40.00
           Jury Fee                               1.00
           Court House Sec Fee                   10.00
           Cons State Fee                       185.00
           County Records Mgt                    25.00
           Specialty Court                       25.00
           Judicial Salary Fee                    5.40
           Sheriff’s Fee                        100.00
           Records Mgt & Pres                    22.50
           State Jury Fee                         4.00
           St Electronic Filing                   5.00

The Jury Fee and Specialty Court Fee were among the 2019 (effective January 1,

2020) legislative changes and, thus, do not apply to this 2017 offense and should be

deleted. See Shuler, 650 S.W.3d at 687; Contreras, 2021 WL 6071640, at *9 n.7.

Additionally, although “a fee of $25 for records management and preservation

services” was previously authorized by former article 102.005(f), it is listed twice in

the bill of costs: once as “County Records Mgt” in the amount of $25 and once as

“Records Mgt & Pres” in the amount of $22.50. See FORMER TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. art. 102.005(f) (Records Mgt & Pres, effective June 17, 2005, to December

31, 2019) (providing for a $25 fee and separating that amount into two funds; $22.50

going to a general management and preservation fund, and $2.50 going to the

                                         –9–
management and preservation fund “of the clerk”). Therefore, the duplicative

“Records Mgt & Pres” fee of $22.50 should be deleted. The Court House Security

Fee was authorized by former article 102.017 in an amount of $5, and thus should

be reduced from $10 to $5 here. See Contreras, 2021 WL 6071640, at *9 n.7. The

State Consolidated Fee was authorized by former section 133.102 of the local

government code in an amount of $133, not $185. See Shuler, 650 S.W.3d at 691;

Contreras, 2021 WL 6071640, at *9. The remainder of the costs are supported by

statutes in effect at the time of the 2017 offense. See FORMER TEX. LOC. GOV’T

CODE § 133.105 (Judicial Salary Fee, effective October 1, 2007, through December

31, 2019); FORMER TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. arts. 102.0045(a) (State Jury Fee,

effective September 1, 2011, through December 31, 2019), 102.005(a) (Clerk’s Fee,

effective June 17, 2005, to December 31, 2019), 102.011 (Sheriff’s Fee, effective

September 1, 2009, through December 31, 2019); FORMER TEX. GOV’T CODE §

51.851(d) (St Electronic Filing, effective September 1, 2015, through December 31,

2019). Therefore, the total cost assessed in Cause No. F17-52310-M should be

$317.40.

      The bills of costs in Cause Nos. F17-52308-M and F17-52309-M charge

appellant the same fees as those assessed in Cause No. F17-52310-M, except the

Sheriff’s Fee is listed at $150, instead of $100. Article 102.0011 authorizes a

Sheriff’s Fee to be assessed in each case in which there is an arrest, because it is due

for each arrest on each offense, including when a capias is issued for violating terms

                                         –10–
of community supervision. FORMER TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 102.011(a)(1),

(a)(2), (e) ($50 fee for processing arrest warrant or capias) (effective September 1,

2009, through December 31, 2019). According to the record here, a capias was

issued at least twice in each of appellant’s 2017 cases before his final arrest in 2022.

Therefore, the $150 Sheriff’s Fee in Cause Nos. F17-52308-M and F17-52309-M is

authorized by law; however, the remaining costs assessed in those cause numbers

are duplicative and should be deleted.

      And finally, in Cause No. F21-62050-M, the bill of costs assesses the

following costs against appellant:

           Clerk’s Fee                           40.00
           Jury Fee                               1.00
           Court House Sec Fee                   10.00
           Cons State Fee                       185.00
           County Records Mgt                    25.00
           Specialty Court                       25.00

Although the Court House Security Fee and State Consolidated Fee have a higher

amount listed for this 2021 offense due to the 2019 legislative amendments, the fees

are duplicative because we have concluded costs should have been assessed in the

2017 first-degree felony case, Cause No. F17-52310-M, in the amounts previously

authorized. See Shuler, 650 S.W.3d at 691; Contreras, 2021 WL 6071640, at *9, *9

n.7; see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 102.073(b) (cost must be assessed using

the highest category offense). The Clerk’s Fee and County Records Management

Fee are also duplicative. However, because the Jury Fee and the Specialty Court

                                         –11–
Fee were added by the 2019 amendments and not applicable to appellant’s 2017

possession with intent to deliver case, they are not duplicative and were properly

assessed against appellant here. See Shuler, 650 S.W.3d at 687; Contreras, 2021

WL 6071640, at *9 n.7. Therefore, the costs assessed against appellant in Cause No.

F21-62050-M should be $26.00.

      As demonstrated by the analysis in this opinion, determining costs can be a

tedious and time-consuming endeavor, especially when a defendant has committed

multiple offenses in different years but is later convicted of the offenses in a single

proceeding. We are sympathetic with the clerks of the court who are tasked with

sifting through various code provisions and their amendments to determine the

amounts authorized to charge. However, it is incumbent on clerks to diligently check

that they are certifying authorized amounts to be assessed against defendants. See

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 103.001(b). Adding an extra column to the bill of costs

indicating the statutory authority for which the fee was assessed could be one way

to ensure that costs are being properly assessed against a defendant. We also urge

the legislature to consider creating a centralized statutory framework for assessing

costs, or even a blanket cost amount for a felony or a misdemeanor conviction, so

that clerks, along with the parties, lawyers, and judges, have a simple roadmap to

follow when determining what costs are authorized.

                                        –12–
                                     Conclusion

      The judgments in Cause Nos. F17-52308-M and F17-52309-M are modified

as follows:

          “Court Costs: $ N/A” is modified to read “Court Costs: $150.”

      The following costs are deleted from the bills of costs in Cause Nos. F17-

52308-M and F17-52309-M:

              Clerk’s Fee                       40.00
              Jury Fee                           1.00
              Court House Sec Fee               10.00
              Cons State Fee                   185.00
              County Records Mgt                25.00
              Specialty Court                   25.00
              Judicial Salary Fee                5.40
              Records Mgt & Pres                22.50
              State Jury Fee                     4.00
              St Electronic Filing               5.00

Therefore, the bills of costs in Cause Nos. F17-52308-M and F17-52309-M are

modified to read:

              Sheriff’s Fee                   150.00
              Initial Amount Due              150.00

      The judgment in Cause No. F17-52310-M is modified as follows:

          “Court Costs: $ N/A” is modified to read “Court Costs: $317.40.”

      The following costs are deleted from the bill of costs in Cause No.

F17-52310-M:

              Jury Fee                           1.00
              Specialty Court                   25.00
              Records Mgt & Pres                22.50

                                       –13–
And the following costs are modified in the bill of costs:

          “Court House Sec Fee        10.00” is modified to read
           “Court House Sec Fee        5.00”; and

          “Cons State Fees            185.00” is modified to read
           “Cons State Fees            133.00.

Therefore, the bill of costs in Cause No. F17-52310-M is modified to read:

           Clerk’s Fee                          40.00
           Court House Sec Fee                   5.00
           Cons State Fee                      133.00
           County Records Mgt                   25.00
           Judicial Salary Fee                   5.40
           Sheriff’s Fee                       100.00
           State Jury Fee                        4.00
           St Electronic Filing                  5.00
           Initial Amount Due                  317.40

      The judgment in Cause No. F21-62050-M is modified as follows:

          “10 YEARS TDCJ” is deleted from the section entitled “Terms of Plea
           Bargain” and is modified to read “Open”; and

          “Court Costs: $286” is modified to read “Court Costs: $26.”

      The following costs are deleted from the bill of costs in Cause No.

F21-62050-M:

           Clerk’s Fee                          40.00
           Court House Sec Fee                  10.00
           Cons State Fee                      185.00
           County Records Mgt                   25.00

Therefore, the bill of costs in Cause No. F21-62050-M is modified to read:

           Jury Fee                              1.00
           Specialty Court                      25.00
           Initial Amount Due                   26.00
                                        –14–
      As modified, we affirm the judgments of conviction, and we grant counsel’s

motions to withdraw in each case. The trial court is directed to prepare, in each case,

a corrected judgment and bill of costs that reflects the modifications made in this

Court’s opinion and judgments. See Shumate v. State, 649 S.W.3d 240, 245–46

(Tex. App.—Dallas 2021, no pet.).

                                            /Craig Smith/
                                            CRAIG SMITH
                                            JUSTICE

Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
220328F.U05

                                        –15–
                                  S
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

WILLIE JAMES JONES, Appellant                On Appeal from the 194th Judicial
                                             District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-00328-CR          V.               Trial Court Cause No. F21-62050-M.
                                             Opinion delivered by Justice Smith.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Justices Carlyle and Kennedy
                                             participating.

   Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED as follows:

          “10 YEARS TDCJ” is deleted from the section entitled “Terms of Plea
           Bargain” and is modified to read “Open”; and

          “Court Costs: $286” is modified to read “Court Costs: $26.”

      Additionally, the bill of costs is MODIFIED as follows:

          “Clerk’s Fee               40.00” is deleted;

          “Court House Sec Fee       10.00” is deleted;

          “Cons State Fees           185.00” is deleted;

          “County Records Mgt        25.00” is deleted; and

          “Initial Amount Due: $286.00” is modified to read
           “Initial Amount Due: $26.00.”

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
                                       –2–
       We DIRECT the trial court to prepare a corrected judgment and bill of costs
that reflect these modifications.

Judgment entered this 10th day of October 2023.

                                       –3–
                                  S
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                  JUDGMENT

WILLIE JAMES JONES, Appellant               On Appeal from the 194th Judicial
                                            District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-00329-CR          V.              Trial Court Cause No. F17-52308-M.
                                            Opinion delivered by Justice Smith.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                Justices Carlyle and Kennedy
                                            participating.

   Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED as follows:

          “Court Costs: $ N/A” is modified to read “Court Costs: $150.”

      Additionally, the bill of costs is MODIFIED as follows:

          “Clerk’s Fee               40.00” is deleted;

          “Jury Fee                  1.00” is deleted;

          “Court House Sec Fee       10.00” is deleted;

          “Cons State Fees           185.00” is deleted;

          “County Records Mgt        25.00” is deleted;

          “Specialty Court           25.00” is deleted;

          “Judicial Salary Fee       5.40” is deleted;

          “Records Mgt & Pres        22.50” is deleted;
                                       –4–
          “State Jury Fee           4.00” is deleted;

          “St Electronic Filing     5.00” is deleted; and

          “Initial Amount Due: $472.90” is modified to read
           “Initial Amount Due: $150.00.”

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

       We DIRECT the trial court to prepare a corrected judgment and bill of costs
that reflect these modifications.

Judgment entered this 10th day of October 2023.

                                       –5–
                                  S
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                  JUDGMENT

WILLIE JAMES JONES, Appellant                On Appeal from the 194th Judicial
                                             District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-00330-CR          V.               Trial Court Cause No. F17-52309-M.
                                             Opinion delivered by Justice Smith.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Justices Carlyle and Kennedy
                                             participating.

   Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED as follows:

          “Court Costs: $ N/A” is modified to read “Court Costs: $150.”

      Additionally, the bill of costs is MODIFIED as follows:

          “Clerk’s Fee               40.00” is deleted;

          “Jury Fee                  1.00” is deleted;

          “Court House Sec Fee       10.00” is deleted;

          “Cons State Fees           185.00” is deleted;

          “County Records Mgt        25.00” is deleted;

          “Specialty Court           25.00” is deleted;

          “Judicial Salary Fee       5.40” is deleted;

          “Records Mgt & Pres        22.50” is deleted;

                                       –6–
          “State Jury Fee           4.00” is deleted;

          “St Electronic Filing     5.00” is deleted; and

          “Initial Amount Due: $472.90” is modified to read
           “Initial Amount Due: $150.00.”

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

       We DIRECT the trial court to prepare a corrected judgment and bill of costs
that reflect these modifications.

Judgment entered this 10th day of October 2023.

                                       –7–
                                  S
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

WILLIE JAMES JONES, Appellant                On Appeal from the 194th Judicial
                                             District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-00331-CR          V.               Trial Court Cause No. F17-52310-M.
                                             Opinion delivered by Justice Smith.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Justices Carlyle and Kennedy
                                             participating.

   Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED as follows:

          “Court Costs: $ N/A” is modified to read “Court Costs: $317.40.”

      Additionally, the bill of costs is MODIFIED as follows:

          “Jury Fee                  1.00” is deleted;

          “Court House Sec Fee       10.00” is modified to read
           “Court House Sec Fee       5.00”;

          “Cons State Fees           185.00” is modified to read
           “Cons State Fees           133.00”;

          “Specialty Court           25.00” is deleted;

          “Records Mgt & Pres        22.50” is deleted; and

        “Initial Amount Due: $422.90” is modified to read
         “Initial Amount Due: $317.40.”
As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                       –8–
       We DIRECT the trial court to prepare a corrected judgment and bill of costs
that reflect these modifications.

Judgment entered this 10th day of October 2023.

                                       –9–