Moise Martinez v. State

AFFIRM; Opinion Filed December 11, 2013.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-12-01536-CR
MOISE MARTINEZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1162885-Y
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, Lang, and Brown
Opinion by Justice Brown
Moise Martinez was charged by indictment for the offense of aggravated robbery. See
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). He pleaded guilty to the offense and true to
one enhancement paragraph. A jury found Martinez guilty and assessed punishment at fifty
years’ imprisonment and a $5000 fine. The trial court also ordered Martinez to pay $264 in court
costs. In a single point of error, Martinez challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support
the trial court’s assessment of court costs. He requests that we reform the judgment to delete the
requirement that he pay the specific amount of court costs because the clerk’s record does not
contain a cost bill.
If a criminal action or proceeding is appealed, “an officer of the court shall certify and
sign a bill of costs stating the costs that have 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 who is entitled to receive payment for the cost.” Id. art. 103.001.
When, as here, the bill of costs was not sent to the Court and made part of the record, we
may direct the district clerk to supplement the record with the bill of costs. 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); see also Franklin v. State, 402 S.W.3d 894, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no
pet.); Ballinger v. State, 405 S.W.3d 346, 348 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2013, no pet.) (“[W]hen a trial
court’s assessment of costs is challenged on appeal and no bill of costs is in the record, it is
appropriate to supplement the record pursuant to Rule 34.5(c) because a bill of costs is required
by Article 103.006.”). The Dallas County District Clerk complied with our order and filed a
supplemental clerk’s record that contains six pages of a computer printout itemizing the costs
assessed in the case. The supplemental clerk’s record also includes a bill of costs certification
signed by the deputy district clerk and certified by the district clerk. Because the clerk’s record
now contains a cost bill that supports the assessment of costs, Martinez’s complaint that the
evidence is insufficient to support the imposition of costs because the record does not contain a
cost bill is moot. Franklin, 402 S.W.3d at 895; Coronel v. State, No. 05-12-00493-CR, 2013 WL
3874446, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 29, 2013, pet. filed). We resolve Martinez’s point of
error against him.
Martinez also filed an objection to the bill of costs in the supplemental clerk’s record. He
specifically complains (1) the bill of costs filed by the district clerk is not a proper bill of costs
because it consists of “unsigned, unsworn computer printouts” and (2) the record does not
indicate the computer printouts were filed in the trial court or brought to the trial court’s attention
–2–
before the costs were entered in the judgment. We previously have addressed and overruled both
of these arguments in Coronel v. State, 2013 WL 3874446, at *4–5 (concluding supplemental
record filed by clerk meets mandate of code of criminal procedure and there is no requirement
that cost bill be presented to trial court at any time before judgment). Accordingly, we overrule
Martinez’s objection to the cost bill contained in the supplemental clerk’s record.
Finally, we note that in his original brief and his objection, Martinez does not challenge
the propriety or legality of the specific costs assessed. We therefore do not address these
matters.
Having resolved Martinez’s sole point of error against him, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
/Ada Brown/
ADA BROWN
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
121536F.U05
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
MOISE MARTINEZ, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
No. 7, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-12-01536-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F-1162885-Y.
Opinion delivered by Justice Brown.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Moseley and Lang participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 11th day of December, 2013.
/Ada Brown/
ADA BROWN
JUSTICE
–4–