DocketNumber: NO. 02-15-00409-CR
Citation Numbers: 506 S.W.3d 715
Judges: Dauphinot, Gardner, Walker
Filed Date: 12/15/2016
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
OPINION
Appellant Michael Zamarripa pled true to the allegations in the State’s petition to adjudicate, and the trial court revoked his deferred adjudication community supervision, adjudicated his guilt for the offense of burglary of a habitation, and sentenced him to eight years’ confinement. In his sole point, Appellant challenges only one aspect of the trial court’s judgment revoking his deferred adjudication community supervision and adjudicating him guilty: he contends that the trial court violated his right to due process by erroneously assessing community supervision fees as reparations in the judgment. Because we overrule this point, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Appellant may raise this point for the first time on appeal.
“[W]e 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, and traditional Jackson evidentiary-sufficiency principles do not apply.”
That the clerk’s record also contains a fee breakdown showing “0.00” for “Probation Fees Remaining” dated three days after the trial court adjudicated Appellant guilty and after the trial court had assessed the community supervision fees as reparations is not, as he argues, conclusive evidence that no fees were owed; rather, it must be weighed against the balance sheet and certified bill of costs.
We overrule Appellant’s only point and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
. See London v. State, 490 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016).
. See Taylor v. State, No. 02-15-00425-CR, 2016 WL 3159156, at *3-6 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth Sept. 28, 2016, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (collecting cases); Tucker v. State, Nos. 02-15-00265-CR, 02-15-00266-CR, 2016 WL 742087, at *1 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth Feb. 25, 2016, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
. Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385, 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
. Id. at 395-96.
. See, e.g., Tucker, 2016 WL 742087, at *2.
. See Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 390, 395-96.
Darryl Edward Davis, Jr. v. State ( 2021 )
William Roger McGlothlin v. the State of Texas ( 2021 )
Almeater Wilson Turner v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )
Elijah Ray Foy v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )
Chaz Erin Taylor v. State ( 2019 )