Court Opinion

ID: 9930573
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 09:13:04.663939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:16:10.841441
License: Public Domain

In the
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                   No. 06-23-00124-CR

           JAMES H. BROCKMAN, Appellant

                            V.

           THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

         On Appeal from the 102nd District Court
                 Bowie County, Texas
             Trial Court No. 21F1073-102

      Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
      Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens
                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION

           Pursuant to a plea bargain, James H. Brockman pled guilty to theft of property of a value

under $2,500.00, with two prior theft convictions.1 The trial court found Brockman guilty,

sentenced him to two years’ confinement in state jail, suspended his sentence, and placed him on

community supervision for a period of five years. Brockman was also assessed a fine of

$2,000.00, court costs of $290.00, reimbursement fees of $260.00, and restitution of $852.48.

           Less than two years later, Brockman’s community supervision was revoked after he pled

true to the State’s allegations that he violated the terms of his community supervision in six

ways. The trial court sentenced him to two years’ confinement in state jail and assessed him a

fine of $2,000.00, court costs of $290.00, reimbursement fees of $260.00, and restitution of

$852.48.

           In this appeal,2 Brockman challenges the assessment of reimbursement fees because

(1) they are not supported by the most current bill of costs and (2) there is insufficient evidence

to support the assessment of his court-appointed attorney fees. As Brockman acknowledges,

$250.00 of the assessed reimbursement fees were for court-appointed attorney fees.

           Brockman raised identical issues and made virtually identical arguments in the appeal of

another theft conviction, which we addressed in our opinion in cause number 06-23-00122-CR.

Because these issues are identical to those addressed in that opinion, we overrule these issues for

the reasons stated in that opinion.

1
    See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(e)(4)(D) (Supp.).
2
 In our cause numbers 06-23-00122-CR and 06-23-00123-CR, Brockman appeals two other convictions for theft of
property of a value under $2,500.00, with two prior theft convictions.
                                                         2
      We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                              Scott E. Stevens
                                              Chief Justice

Date Submitted:      January 2, 2024
Date Decided:        February 2, 2024

Do Not Publish

                                                 3