Aaron Christopher Foster v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)
• Decided: May 26, 2026
• Docket: 07-25-00078-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-25-00078-CR

AARON CHRISTOPHER FOSTER, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 108th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 084012-E-CR, Honorable Timothy G. Pirtle, Presiding

May 26, 2026 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant, Aaron Christopher Foster, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a

deadly weapon,1 a second-degree felony, and was placed on deferred adjudication

community supervision. The State moved to revoke Appellant’s community supervision

and adjudicate guilt. Appellant pleaded true to one ground and not true to the others.

Following a contested hearing, the trial court adjudicated Appellant guilty and sentenced

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.02(a)(2). him to fifteen years of confinement. By a single issue, Appellant challenges the

assessment of a time payment fee in the bill of costs. The State concedes the error, and

we agree. We affirm as modified.

Article 102.030 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires a person convicted of

an offense to pay a $15 time payment fee if any part of a fine, court cost, restitution, or

reimbursement fee is paid on or after the thirty-first day after the judgment is entered.

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 102.030(a). The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that a

timely appeal stops the thirty-one-day clock. See Dulin v. State, 620 S.W.3d 129, 133

(Tex. Crim. App. 2021). Here, Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal, and the thirty-

one-day period had not elapsed when the clerk assessed the fee. We modify the bill of

costs to delete the time payment fee, without prejudice to its reassessment if, more than

thirty days after issuance of our mandate, Appellant has failed to pay any fine, court costs,

or restitution owed. Appellant’s sole issue is sustained.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s judgment with the modified bill of costs.

Lawrence M. Doss Justice

Do not publish.