Court Opinion

ID: 9943693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-24 10:14:02.629512+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:47.464942
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00139-CR

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

              TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                     TYLER, TEXAS

DEKEIDRIAN KESHUN ROLLINS,                       §      APPEAL FROM THE 349TH
APPELLANT

V.                                               §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                         §      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.

                                          BACKGROUND
       Appellant was charged by indictment with burglary of a building. Pursuant to a plea
agreement, Appellant pleaded “guilty” and was placed on deferred adjudication community
supervision for three years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s
guilt. After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion and assessed Appellant’s punishment at
two years confinement. This appeal followed.
                                           BILL OF COSTS
         In his sole issue, Appellant argues that the bill of costs contains an inaccurate assessment
of costs. Specifically, he urges that the bill of costs incorrectly requires him to reimburse his
court-appointed attorney’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 included $317 in court costs and $675 in attorney’s
fees.    The original judgment stated that Appellant “has financial resources that enable
[Appellant] to offset in part or in whole the cost of the legal services provided to [Appellant]”
and further orders Appellant to pay the court appointed attorney’s fees in his case. However, the
trial court has since entered two nunc pro tunc judgments, the second of which deleted this
special finding and lists only court costs of $317. The bill of costs has not been corrected 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 occurs.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC ANN. 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 fees absent evidence of a material change in financial circumstances). Here, nothing
in the record shows a material change in Appellant’s financial circumstances since counsel was
appointed to represent him. Absent a showing of a material change in Appellant’s financial
circumstances, it was error for the district clerk to assess attorney’s fees against Appellant in the
bill 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 assessment 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 pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (reforming both judgment and
bill of costs to delete assessment of attorney’s fees against indigent criminal defendant). We
sustain Appellant’s sole issue.

                                                  2
                                                  DISPOSITION
         Based on the foregoing, we modify the trial court’s bill of costs by deleting the
assessment of attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s second nunc pro tunc judgment.

                                                                JAMES T. WORTHEN
                                                                   Chief Justice

Opinion delivered February 22, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

                                                          3
                                  COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                          JUDGMENT

                                        FEBRUARY 22, 2024

                                        NO. 12-23-00139-CR

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

                               Appeal from the 349th District Court
                         of Houston County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 21CR-064)

       THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record and the briefs filed herein, and
the same being inspected, it is the opinion of the Court that the bill of costs of the trial court
below should be modified.
                        It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the bill of
costs of the court below be modified to delete the assessment of attorney’s fees; the trial court’s
second nunc pro tunc judgment is affirmed; and that this decision be certified to the trial court
below for observance.

                   James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.
                   Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.