Charles Blackshire A/K/A Charlie Blackshire v. State ( 2015 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00364-CR
CHARLES BLACKSHIRE A/K/A APPELLANT
CHARLIE BLACKSHIRE
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1270086D
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND1
----------
This case is on remand to this court from the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. On original submission, Blackshire, in two points, appealed the trial
court’s judgment ordering him to pay $1,592 in reparations and $309 in court
costs, following the revocation of his deferred adjudication community
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
supervision. Blackshire v. State, No. 02–12–00364–CR, 2013 WL 4679211 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth Aug. 29, 2013) (not designated for publication). Subsumed in
his arguments, Blackshire also appealed the trial court’s imposition of court costs
in the amount of $72 “Due to CSCD.” Id. at *2. This court modified the trial
court’s judgment to reflect $284 in court costs and $1,032 (including appointed
attorney fees in the amount of $900) in reparations, and affirmed the judgment as
modified. Id. In modifying the judgment, this court held that sufficient evidence
existed to support the trial court’s imposition of the $72 due to CSCD. Id.
Blackshire then petitioned the court of criminal appeals for discretionary
review. During the time in which Blackshire’s petition was pending in the court of
criminal appeals regarding our opinion on original submission, the court of
criminal appeals handed down Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2014), in which the Court set forth a roadmap for resolving questions
regarding court costs. In light of this opinion, the Court vacated our judgment
and remanded Blackshire’s appeal back to us. In its remand, the Court cited
Blackshire’s argument, and our original holding, regarding whether the evidence
was sufficient to support the $72 court cost fee payable to “CSCD.”2 Blackshire
2
Even though both Blackshire and the State rebriefed their arguments
pertaining to all of Blackshire’s original points on appeal after the court of criminal
appeals remanded this case back to this court, because the Court remanded
back to this court specifically to address the $72 due to CSCD, we have confined
our opinion on remand to this fee only.
2
v. State, No. PD-1368-13, 2014 WL 1512961 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (not
designated for publication).
Relevant to this case on remand, Johnson makes clear that
supplementation of the clerk’s record with a bill of cost, even if prepared after a
criminal trial, does not constitute a new record for purposes of appeal. See Tex.
R. App. P. 34.5(a) (listing items that generally must be included in a record on
appeal); see also Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 391. Thus, this court is permitted to
order an “officer of the trial court to supplement the record with a bill of costs.”
See Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 392 (“We conclude that a bill of costs is a relevant
item that if omitted from the record, can be prepared and added to the record via
a supplemental clerk’s record.”).
Here, the trial court has provided two supplemental clerk’s records. In its
first supplemental clerk’s record, the trial court included a “Bill of Cost.” In its
second supplement clerk’s record, the trial court included a certified cost sheet
attributable to the “Community Supervision and Corrections Department of
Tarrant County.” This sheet contains a specific entry for $72 “Due to CSCD.”
Both the bill of cost and the CSCD sheet are stamped by the trial court clerk, and
signed and dated by the trial court’s deputy clerk. See Shaw v. State, No. 14-12-
00876-CR, 2014 WL 4700683, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 23,
2014) (“The . . . report in this record is a compliant bill of costs because it
contains an itemized list of costs, is certified by the district clerk, and is signed by
a deputy district clerk.”) (mem. op. on remand) (not designated for publication).
3
Johnson also stands for the proposition that “a specific amount of court
costs need not be supported by a bill of costs in the appellate record for a
reviewing court to conclude that the assessed court costs are supported by facts
in the record.” Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 395.
In this case, we originally held that the $72 due to CSCD was supported by
evidence that the trial court had imposed a condition in his community
supervision that Blackshire submit to drug testing and that he “pay for testing”;
and that the record reflected that Blackshire had been tested multiple times
during his community supervision. Blackshire, 2013 WL 4679211 at *2.
Therefore, this court concluded that there was “evidence in the record
documenting why the trial court assessed this $72 fee.” Id. Even though the
Court held in Johnson that a bill of costs was not necessary, although preferred,
to support a reviewing court’s holding that sufficient evidence in the record exists
to support the trial court’s imposition of court costs, nonetheless, the court of
criminal appeals still vacated this court’s judgment and remanded this case to
this court to address the $72 due to CSCD. See Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 395–
96; Blackshire, 2014 WL 1512961 at *1.
Because the appellate record now contains two supplements that are
certified by the trial court, signed and dated by the trial court’s deputy clerk,
specifically attributing the $72 costs to CSCD, and because there remains further
evidence in the record that these costs are directly related to the condition of
Blackshire’s community supervision that he pay for drug testing which evidence
4
supports he took, we affirm our original holding and overrule Blackshire’s
argument that there is insufficient evidence in the record for the imposition of the
$72 fee due to CSCD.
Having reaffirmed that the record in this case supports the trial court’s
imposition of the $72 “due to CSCD,” we again modify the judgment adjudicating
Blackshire’s guilt to reflect $284 in court costs on page 1 of the judgment and the
reparations amount to reflect $1,032 (which includes $900 in appointed attorney
fees, $60 for one month of assessed probation fees, and $72 due to CSCD) on
page 2 of the judgment, and we affirm the judgment as modified.
/s/ Bill Meier
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE
PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: May 28, 2015
5