Court Opinion

ID: 9394318
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-13 10:10:00.63334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:58.858711
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-22-00002-CR

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                 TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                          TYLER, TEXAS

KEVIN DEWAYNE LOCKETT,                                  §       APPEAL FROM THE 87TH DISTRICT
APPELLANT
                                                        §       COURT
V.
                                                        §       ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE

                                       MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Kevin DeWayne Lockett appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon. In a single issue, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
trial court’s assessment of court costs.1 We modify and affirm as modified.
                                                BACKGROUND
        In July 2020, Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon and assault family violence by impeding breath or circulation. The indictment also
included an enhancement paragraph alleging Appellant was previously convicted of aggravated
sexual assault of a child. Appellant pleaded “not guilty” to both charges, and the matters
proceeded to a jury trial. The jury ultimately found Appellant “guilty” of aggravated assault with
a deadly weapon and “not guilty” of assault family violence by impeding breath or circulation.
At the trial on punishment, Appellant pleaded “true” to the enhancement paragraph. The jury
sentenced Appellant to sixty years imprisonment. This appeal followed.

        1
          After filing Appellant’s brief, Appellant’s counsel, at Appellant’s request, filed a motion to withdraw.
This Court remanded the motion to withdraw to the trial court. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the
motion. We notified Appellant that the motion had been granted and gave Appellant additional time to file a
supplemental brief. The time for filing a supplemental brief has lapsed and no brief has been filed.
                                         COURT COSTS
       In a single issue, Appellant contends the evidence is legally insufficient to support the
court costs assessed because the record does not contain a certified bill of costs. However, since
the filing of Appellant’s brief, the record has been supplemented to include a bill of costs.
Therefore, we review Appellant’s issue as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
Standard of Review
       A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting court costs is reviewable on
direct appeal in a criminal case. See Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759, 767 (Tex. Crim. App.
2011). We measure sufficiency by reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the award.
See Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552, 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Cardenas v. State, 403
S.W.3d 377, 388 (Tex.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013), aff’d 423 S.W.3d 396 (Tex. – 2014).
Requiring a convicted defendant to pay court costs does not alter the range of punishment, is
authorized by statute, and generally is not conditioned on a defendant’s ability to pay. See TEX.
CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.16 (West 2018); Armstrong, 340 S.W.3d at 767; see also
Johnson v. State, 405 S.W.3d 350, 354 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2013, no pet.).
Applicable Law
       A judgment shall “adjudge the costs against the defendant, and order collection
thereof....” See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.16. If a criminal action is appealed, “an
officer of the court shall certify and sign a bill of costs stating the costs that have accrued and
send the bill of costs to the court to which the action or proceeding is transferred or appealed.”
Id. art. 103.006 (West 2018). Requiring a convicted defendant to pay court costs does not alter
the range of punishment and is authorized by statute. See id. art. 103.001 (West 2018); Weir v.
State, 278 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). The clerk’s record may be supplemented to
add the bill of costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 103.006;
Johnson, 405 S.W.3d at 353.
Analysis
       The judgment of conviction reflects the trial court assessed $355 as court costs. The bill
of costs itemizes the costs and fees assessed against Appellant, including the following costs:
$185 State Consolidated Court Cost, $105 Local Consolidated Court Cost, $50 Executing
Capias, and $15 Time Payment Fee. The fifteen-dollar time payment fee listed is prematurely
assessed. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that the pendency of an appeal “stops the

                                                2
clock” for the purposes of the time payment fee. Dulin v. State, 620 S.W.3d 129, 133 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2021). Consequently, the assessment of the time payment fee in Appellant’s case is
premature and should be struck in its entirety, without prejudice to its being assessed later if,
more than thirty days after the issuance of the appellate mandate, the defendant has failed
completely to pay any fine, court costs, or restitution that he owes. Id. The remainder of the fees
assessed are authorized by statute. See TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 133.102 (West 2021)
(state consolidated court cost), 134.101 (West 2021) (local consolidated fee on conviction of
felony); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.011(a)(2) (West Supp. 2022) (executing capias).
         This Court has the authority to modify incorrect judgments when it has available the
information necessary to do so. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–
28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Because the imposition of the time payment fee is premature until
thirty days after the resolution of an appeal, the time payment fee assessed herein must be struck.
We sustain in part Appellant’s sole issue.
                                                   DISPOSITION
         Having sustained in part Appellant’s only issue, we modify both the bill of costs and the
trial court’s judgment to remove the time payment fee and reflect total costs of $340. Our ruling
is without prejudice to future assessment of the time payment fee if, more than thirty days after
our mandate issues, Appellant fails to completely pay any fine, court costs, or restitution he
owes. As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                                 BRIAN HOYLE
                                                                    Justice

Opinion delivered May 10, 2023.
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

                                              MAY 10, 2023

                                         NO. 12-22-00002-CR

                                 KEVIN DEWAYNE LOCKETT,
                                         Appellant
                                            V.
                                   THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                         Appellee

                                 Appeal from the 87th District Court
                     of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 87CR-20-34650)

                    THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and the briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that the bill of costs and the
judgment of the court below should be modified and as modified, affirmed.
                    It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the bill of costs
and the judgment of the court below be modified to remove the time payment fee; in all other
respects the judgment of the trial court is affirmed; and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance.

                    Brian Hoyle, Justice.
                    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.