Lusio Morales Limas v. State

Affirmed and Opinion Filed February 26, 2014
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-12-01038-CR
LUISO MORALES LIMAS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F10-72294-X
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Myers and Evans
Opinion by Chief Justice Wright
Luiso Morales Limas was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than
fourteen years. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021(a)(1)(B)(i) (West Supp. 2013). The trial
court assessed punishment at twenty years’ imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. The trial court’s
judgment also includes an order that appellant pay $636 in court costs. In a single issue,
appellant contends there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s order
that he pay the $636 in court costs. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s order that he
pay $636 in court costs because the clerk’s record does not contain a bill of costs. The State
responds that the record contains sufficient evidence to support a portion of the amount of costs
assessed by the trial court.
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 record in this case does not contain a copy of the bill of costs. We, however,
ordered the Dallas County District Clerk to file a supplemental record containing a certified bill
of costs associated with this case, and the clerk did so. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c)(1) (allowing
supplementation of clerk’s record if relevant items have been omitted). Appellant’s complaint
that the evidence is insufficient to support the imposition of costs because the clerk’s record did
not contain a bill of costs is now moot. See Coronel v. State, 416 S.W.3d 550, 555 (Tex. App.––
Dallas, pet. ref’d); Franklin v. State, 402 S.W.3d 894, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.).
We overrule his first issue.
In response to the Court’s order requiring supplementation of the records, appellant filed
an objection that the bill of costs in the supplemental record is not “proper bill[s] of costs” and
the bill of costs was not filed in the trial court or brought to the trial court’s attention before costs
were entered into the judgment. The Court rejected these objections and arguments in Coronel.
See Coronel, 416 S.W.3d at 555–56. We likewise reject them here, and conclude the cost bill
contained in the supplemental clerk’s record is sufficient to support the assessment of costs in the
judgment. See id. We overrule all of appellant’s objections to the supplemental clerk’s record.
‐2‐
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
121038F.U05
/Carolyn Wright/
CAROLYN WRIGHT
CHIEF JUSTICE
‐3‐
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
LUISO MORALES LIMAS, Appellant Appeal from the Criminal District Court
No. 6 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-12-01038-CR V. F10-72294-X).
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Myers and Evans participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered February 26, 2014
/Carolyn Wright/
CAROLYN WRIGHT
CHIEF JUSTICE
‐4‐