Crescencio Taboada v. State

AFFIRM; Opinion Filed January 31, 2014.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-12-01243-CR
CRESCENCIO TABOADA, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F11-60224-H
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, Lang, and Brown
Opinion by Justice Lang
Crescencio Taboada entered an open plea of guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a
child, his own daughter. The trial court accepted his plea and, following a pre-sentence
investigation, assessed punishment at thirty-five years’ imprisonment. The trial court also
assessed court costs in the amount of $590. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the evidence
is sufficient to support the assessment of costs. We conclude it is and affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
Taboada’s complaint stems from the lack of a bill of costs in the original clerk’s record.
Under article 103.006 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, when a criminal action is
appealed, a certified bill of costs stating the costs that have accrued must be sent to the appellate
court. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.103.006 (West 2006). Costs may not be collected from
–1–
the defendant until a written, itemized bill is signed and produced by the officer who charged the
cost or the officer entitled to receive payment for the cost. Id. art. 103.001.
Because the original clerk’s record failed to include a bill of costs, we ordered the Dallas
County District Clerk to file a supplemental record containing the bill. See TEX. R. APP. P.
34.5(c)(1) (allowing for supplementation of clerk’s record if relevant item omitted). The clerk
complied, filing two supplemental records. The first contained an unsigned, unsworn computer
printout showing costs in the amount of $590. The second contained the same computer printout
as well as a “Bill of Costs Certification” signed and certified by the district clerk. 1
Because the second supplemental record contains a bill of costs supporting the amount
assessed, Taboada’s issue is moot. See Franklin v. State, 402 S.W.3d 894, 895 (Tex. App.-–
Dallas 2013, no pet.). We resolve Taboada’s sole issue against him.
/Douglas S. Lang/
DOUGLAS S. LANG
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
121243F.U05
1
Taboada filed two objections to the first supplemental record. Because a second supplemental record was filed, Taboada’s objections to
the first supplemental record are overruled. Taboada did not object to the second supplemental record.
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CRESCENCIO TABOADA, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
No. 1, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-12-01243-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F11-60224-H.
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Justices
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Moseley and Brown participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment entered this 31st day of January, 2014.
/Douglas S. Lang/
DOUGLAS S. LANG
JUSTICE
–3–