Timothy Rosales v. State ( 2014 )

Opinion issued May 6, 2014
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-12-00549-CR
———————————
TIMOTHY ROSALES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 184th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1311741
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Timothy Rosales, pleaded guilty without an agreed
recommendation as to punishment to the second-degree felony offense of failure to
comply with the sex offender registration requirements, and the trial court assessed
his punishment at twenty years’ confinement. 1 The written judgment ordered
appellant to pay $279 in court costs. In his sole issue, appellant contends that
insufficient evidence supports the trial court’s assessment of court costs.
We affirm.
Background
Appellant does not challenge the merits of his conviction or his sentence for
failure to comply with the sex offender registration requirements. His sole issue on
appeal instead relates to the assessment of $279 in court costs against him in the
written judgment. He does not raise a challenge to the assessment of a particular
cost.
The written judgment stated the aggregate amount of court costs to be
assessed against appellant: $279. An itemized bill of costs was not produced at the
time the trial court pronounced appellant’s sentence or at the time the court signed
the written judgment. The original clerk’s record on appeal did not contain a bill
of costs. After appellant filed his appellate brief challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence to support the costs assessment, the Harris County district clerk filed a
supplemental clerk’s record containing a printout entitled “Justice Information
Management Systems Cost Bill Assessment.” This document set out each item of
cost assessed against appellant, for a total amount owed of $279. This printout
1
See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 62.102(b)(3) (Vernon Supp. 2013).
2
contained the seal of the Harris County district clerk and a certification, signed by
a deputy clerk, that the printout was a “true and correct copy of the original
record.”
Appellant objected to the supplemental record, arguing that it was not clear
from the record whether the bill of costs printout was generated at the time the trial
court signed the written judgment. He also argued that the printout did not
constitute a bill of costs because it was not signed and there was no indication that
the trial court saw it before signing the written judgment. He argued, “Unless the
‘cost bill’ in this case was created at the time of the judgment and considered by
the trial court, it must not be considered here.”
Sufficiency of Evidence to Support Assessment of Court Costs
The Code of Criminal Procedure requires that a judgment order a defendant
to pay court costs. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.16 (Vernon 2006) (“If
the punishment is any other than a fine, the judgment shall specify it, and order it
enforced by the proper process. It shall also adjudge the costs against the
defendant, and order the collection thereof as in other cases.”); Johnson v. State,
423 S.W.3d 385, 389 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Court costs itemized in a certified
bill of costs need not be orally pronounced or incorporated by reference into the
judgment to be effective. Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 389 (citing Armstrong v. State,
340 S.W.3d 759, 766–67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011)). Court costs are not part of a
3
defendant’s guilt or sentence and need not be proved at trial. Id. at 390 Thus,
reviewing courts do not apply traditional sufficiency of evidence principles when
determining whether sufficient evidence supports the assessment of court costs. Id.
Instead, we review the “assessment of court costs on appeal to determine if there is
a basis for the cost, not to determine if there was sufficient evidence offered at trial
to prove each cost . . . .” Id.
Challenges to the assessment of court costs may be raised for the first time
on appeal. Id. Furthermore, the district clerk may permissibly supplement the
record on appeal with a bill of costs, even though the clerk generated the bill after
the trial court signed the written judgment and did not first present the bill to the
trial court prior to supplementation. Id. at 392, 394.
Under Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 103, which governs collection of
court costs, “a bill of costs must contain the items of cost, it must be signed by the
officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for
the cost, and it must be certified.” Id. at 392; see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.
103.001 (Vernon 2006) (stating requirements for costs to be payable); id. 103.006
(Vernon 2006) (providing that if criminal action is appealed, officer of court shall
certify and sign bill of costs stating costs that have accrued and send bill to
appellate court). The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that a computer printout
entitled “J.I.M.S. COST BILL ASSESSMENT” that lists the itemized court costs
4
that have accrued, contains the seal of the district clerk certifying that the
document is a true and original copy, and is signed by a deputy clerk constitutes a
bill of costs for the purpose of Chapter 103 and supports the assessment of court
costs against the defendant. See Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 392–93. “Absent a
challenge to a specific cost or basis for the assessment of that cost, a bill of costs is
sufficient.” Id. at 396.
Here, appellant does not challenge the assessment of a particular cost. See
id. The Harris County district clerk filed a supplemental record that contained a
printout entitled “Justice Information Management Systems Cost Bill Assessment.”
This printout identified the specific costs that had accrued against appellant and the
amount of each of these costs, which added up to a “total amount owed” of $279. 2
The printout also contained the seal of the Harris County district clerk, a
certification that the document “is a true and correct copy of the original record,”
and the signature of the deputy clerk who prepared the document. We conclude
2
See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.0045(a) (Vernon Supp. 2013)
(charging $4 for jury reimbursement fee); id. art. 102.005(a) (Vernon 2006)
(charging $40 for services of clerk of court); id. art. 102.005(f) (Vernon 2006)
(requiring fee of $25 for records management and preservation services); id. art
102.011(a)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2013) (charging $50 for execution of capias); id. art.
102.011(a)(6) (charging total of $10 for commitment and release); id. art.
102.0169(a) (Vernon Supp. 2013) (charging $4 for court technology fee); id. art.
102.017(a) (Vernon Supp. 2013) (charging $5 security fee upon conviction in
district court); TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 133.102(a) (Vernon Supp. 2013)
(requiring defendant to pay $133 upon felony conviction); id. § 133.105(a)
(Vernon 2008) (charging $6 upon conviction for support of judiciary); id.
§ 133.107(a) (Vernon Supp. 2013) (charging $2 for indigent defense support).
5
that this printout constitutes a “bill of costs” that satisfies the requirements of
Chapter 103 and supports the assessment of $279 in court costs against appellant.
See id. at 393, 396.
We therefore hold that the bill of costs included in the supplemental record
on appeal supports the trial court’s assessment of $279 in court costs against
appellant.
We overrule appellant’s sole issue. 3
3
To the extent appellant complains in his objection to the supplemental clerk’s
record that considering the bill of costs violates his due process rights because
there is no indication that the trial court saw this bill at the time it signed the
written judgment, we note that the Court of Criminal Appeals has rejected this
argument. See Cardenas v. State, 423 S.W.3d 396, 399 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)
(“Convicted defendants have constructive notice of mandatory court costs set by
statute and the opportunity to object to the assessment of court costs against them
for the first time on appeal or in a proceeding under Article 103.008 of the Texas
Code of Criminal Procedure. Appellant’s right to due process of law has been
satisfied with respect to notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the
imposition of court costs.”); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 103.008
(Vernon 2006) (“On the filing of a motion by a defendant not later than one year
after the date of the final disposition of a case in which costs were imposed, the
court in which the case is pending or was last pending shall correct any error in the
costs.”). We overrule appellant’s objection to the supplemental record filed on
February 6, 2013.
6
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We dismiss all pending motions
as moot.
Evelyn V. Keyes
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Brown.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
7