Charles Blackshire A/K/A Charlie Blackshire v. State
This text of Charles Blackshire A/K/A Charlie Blackshire v. State (Charles Blackshire A/K/A Charlie Blackshire v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00364-CR
CHARLES BLACKSHIRE A/K/A APPELLANT CHARLIE BLACKSHIRE
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
I. INTRODUCTION
Appellant Charles Blackshire a/k/a Charlie Blackshire appeals the trial
court’s judgment ordering him to pay $1,592 in reparations and $309 in court
costs following the revocation of his deferred adjudication community
supervision. In two points, Blackshire argues that there is insufficient evidence to
1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. support these costs, and that these costs should be modified to $960 in
reparations and $284 in court costs. We will modify the judgment and affirm the
judgment as modified.
II. BACKGROUND
The trial court placed Blackshire on three years’ deferred adjudication
community supervision on June 11, 2012, upon his plea of guilty to unlawful
possession of a firearm by a felon. In the conditions of his community
supervision, Blackshire agreed to pay $284 in court costs, a $60 supervision fee
“each month during the period of supervision,” and $900 in attorney fees. The
conditions stated that his first payment for the $60 supervision fee was due “on
the 15th day of July, 2012, and like payments on the 15th of each month
thereafter until full payments are made.” On July 20, 2012, the State petitioned
the trial court to adjudicate Blackshire guilty of the underlying offense. He
pleaded true to illegally using controlled substances and failing to appear in
court, and not true to failing to find suitable employment.
After an August 3, 2012 hearing, the trial court found Blackshire guilty of
unlawful possession of a firearm and sentenced him to six years’ confinement.
On the “Revocation Restitution/Reparation Balance Sheet,” the trial court ordered
Blackshire to pay an additional $25 in court costs, totaling $309 in court costs;
$120 in probation fees; $72 “Due to CSCD” fee; and an additional $500 in
attorney fees combined with the $900 in attorney fees listed as a condition of his
2 community supervision. The record does not contain a bill of costs. See Tex.
Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 103.001, .006 (West 2006). This appeal followed.
III. DISCUSSION
The obligation of a convicted person to pay court costs and reparations is
established by statute. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.03, § 2(b) (West
Supp. 2012); see also Armstrong v. State, 320 S.W.3d 479, 481 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo 2010), rev’d in part by 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). A claim
of insufficient evidence to support court costs is reviewable on direct appeal in a
criminal case. See Armstrong, 340 S.W.3d at 767.
A. Attorney Fees
In a portion of his first point, Blackshire claims there is no evidence to
support the additional $500 in attorney fees included in the trial court’s judgment,
and the State concedes this point. The conditions of community supervision list
$900 in attorney fees, but there is no evidence in the record to show that the trial
court found Blackshire as having the ability to pay costs after having found him
previously indigent. See Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552, 557 (Tex. Crim. App.
2010) (reasoning that appellate court is not required to remand case to trial court
before determining that evidence of defendant’s financial resources and ability to
pay was insufficient to support court-ordered repayment of attorney fees).
Therefore, we will sustain this portion of Blackshire’s first point, and we will
modify the judgment to reflect $900 in attorney fees only.
3 B. Probation Fees
In another part of his first point regarding the $120 probation fee,
Blackshire contends that because the community supervision agreement
required him to make his first payment on July 15, 2012, “and like payments on
the 15th day of each month thereafter,” and because he was adjudicated guilty
on August 3, 2012, he only owes $60 in probation fees. In response, the State
asserts that the agreement requires Blackshire to pay $120 in probation fees
because it states that he must pay $60 for “each month during the period of
supervision,” which included June and July. The plain language of the conditions
of his community supervision states that he was to pay the probation fee by
August 15, 2012. Because Blackshire’s community supervision was revoked
before August 15, 2012, we will modify the judgment to reflect $60 in probation
fees.
C. CSCD Fee
In the remainder of Blackshire’s first point, he argues that there is no
evidence showing what the $72 “Due to CSCD” fee represents and therefore we
should modify it. We disagree. The record reflects that as a condition of his
community supervision, Blackshire was obligated to submit to “testing . . . and
pay for testing as required.” [Emphasis added.] The record also reflects that
Blackshire was tested for three different controlled substances, and he failed
each test. Thus, there is evidence in the record documenting why the trial court
assessed this $72 fee. We overrule this portion of Blackshire’s first point. See
4 Boyd v. State, No. 02-11-00035-CR, 2012 WL 1345751, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth April 19, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding
evidence was insufficient to support an $89 reparation “Due to CSCD” because
appellate record contained no documentation allowing reviewing court to
determine what the figure represented).
D. Court Costs
In his second point, Blackshire argues that there is nothing in the record to
support the $25 increase in court costs, and the State concedes this point. We
sustain Blackshire’s second point and we will modify the judgment to reflect court
costs of $284. See Boyd, 2012 WL 1345751 at *2; Johnson v. State, 389 S.W.3d
513, 517 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet granted).
IV. CONCLUSION
We modify the judgment adjudicating Blackshire’s guilt to reflect $284 in
court costs on page 1 of the judgment and the reparations amount to reflect
$1,032 (which includes the appointed attorney fees in the amount of $900) on
page 2 of the judgment, and we affirm the judgment as modified.
BILL MEIER JUSTICE
PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: August 29, 2013
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Charles Blackshire A/K/A Charlie Blackshire v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-blackshire-aka-charlie-blackshire-v-state-texapp-2013.