Jesse C. Castillo v. State ( 2014 )

Affirmed as Modified and Opinion Filed January 7, 2014
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-12-01376-CR
No. 05-12-01377-CR
No. 05-12-01378-CR
No. 05-12-01448-CR
JESSE CARL CASTILLO, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 363rd Dist. Ct. Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F12-40677-W, F11-40913-W, F11-40914-W, F11-40924-W
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, Bridges, and Evans
Opinion by Justice Bridges
A jury convicted Jesse Carl Castillo of two sexual performance by a child offenses, one
indecency with a child by contact offense, and one indecency with a child by exposure offense.
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 21.11(a), (d), 43.25(b), (c) (West 2011). The jury assessed
punishment at twenty years’ imprisonment for each sexual performance by a child conviction,
fifteen years’ imprisonment for the indecency with a child by contact conviction, and eight
years’ imprisonment for the indecency with a child by exposure conviction. The jury also
assessed a $10,000 fine in each case. The trial court’s judgments also include orders that
appellant pay court costs in the amounts of $614, $664, and $714. In four issues, appellant
contends there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s orders that he pay
court costs in each of the cases. We modify the trial court’s judgments and affirm as modified.
Appellant contends the evidence is insufficient in each case to support the trial court’s
order that he pay $614, $664, and $714 in court costs because the clerk’s records do not contain
bills of costs. The State responds that the trial court was authorized to assess court costs in the
amounts of $614, $664, and $714.
If a criminal action is appealed, “an officer of the court shall certify and sign a bill of
costs stating the costs that have been accrued and send the bill of costs to the court to which the
action or proceeding is . . . appealed.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 103.006 (West 2006).
Costs may not be collected from the person charged with the costs until a written bill, containing
the items of cost, is produced and signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer
entitled to receive payment for the cost. Id. art. 103.001.
The clerk’s records in these cases do not contain the bills of costs. We, however, ordered
the Dallas County District Clerk to file supplemental records containing certified bills of costs
associated with the cases, and the clerk did so. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c)(1) (rules of appellate
procedure allow supplementation of clerk’s record if relevant item has been omitted).
Appellant’s complaints that the evidence is insufficient to support the imposition of costs
because the clerk’s records did not contain bills of costs are now moot. See Coronel v. State, No.
05-12-00493-CR, 2013 WL 3874446, at *4 (Tex. App.––Dallas July 29, 2013, pet. ref’d);
Franklin v. State, 402 S.W.3d 894, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.). We overrule
appellant’s four issues.
In response to the Court’s order requiring supplementation of the records, appellant filed
an objection that the bills of costs in the supplemental records are not “proper bill[s] of costs”
‐2‐
and the bills of costs were not filed in the trial court or brought to the trial court’s attention
before costs were entered in the judgments. The Court rejected these objections and arguments
in Coronel. See Coronel, 2013 WL 3874446, at *4–5. We likewise reject them here, and
conclude the cost bills contained in the supplemental clerk’s records are sufficient to support the
assessment of costs in the judgments. See id. We overrule appellant’s objection to the
supplemental clerk’s records.
We note that in cause nos. 05-12-01376-CR, 05-12-01378-CR, and 05-12-01448-CR, the
judgments do not contain the $10,000 fine assessed by the jury. “The judgment shall reflect . . .
that the defendant be punished in accordance with the jury’s verdict. . . .” TEX. CRIM. PROC.
CODE ANN. art. 42.01, § 8 (West 2006).1 The trial court orally read the jury’s verdict with the
defendant present in the courtroom. We are authorized to correct a judgment to accurately
reflect a jury’s verdict. 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, 529–30 (Tex. App.─Dallas 1991, pet.
ref’d). We modify the judgments in those cases to include the $10,000 fine.
In cause nos. 05-12-01376-CR, 05-12-01378-CR, and 05-12-01448-CR, we affirm the
trial court’s judgments as modified. In cause no. 05-12-01377-CR, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
DoNot Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
121376F.U05
/David L. Bridges/
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
1
Unrelated amendments were made to article 42.01 after sentencing. See TEX. CRIM. PROC. CODE ANN.
art. 42.01, § 8 (West Supp. 2013).
‐3‐
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
JESSE CARL CASTILLO, Appellant Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-12-01376-CR V. F12-40677-W).
Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Moseley and Evans participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as
follows:
The section entitled “Fine” is modified to show “$10,000.”
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment entered January 7, 2014
/David L. Bridges/
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
‐4‐
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
JESSE CARL CASTILLO, Appellant Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-12-01377-CR V. F11-40913-W).
Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Moseley and Evans participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered January 7, 2014
/David L. Bridges/
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
/
‐5‐
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
JESSE CARL CASTILLO, Appellant Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-12-01378-CR V. F11-40914-W).
Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Moseley and Evans participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as
follows:
The section entitled “Fine” is modified to show “$10,000.”
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment entered January 7, 2014
/David L. Bridges/
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
‐6‐
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
JESSE CARL CASTILLO, Appellant Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-12-01448-CR V. F11-40924-W).
Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Moseley and Evans participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as
follows:
The section entitled “Fine” is modified to show “$10,000.”
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment entered January 7, 2014
/David L. Bridges/
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
‐7‐