Damian Ricardo Flores v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 15, 2014
• Docket: 14-12-00623-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion on Remand filed May 15, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00623-CR

DAMIAN RICARDO FLORES, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1242919

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND

Appellant Damian Ricardo Flores appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine weighing more than four and less than 200 grams. On original submission, appellant argued that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s costs of $905 reflected in the judgment. We agreed and modified the trial court’s judgment to delete the specific amount of costs assessed. Flores v. State, No. 14-12-00623-CR; 2013 WL 5470048 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 1, 2013) vacated and remanded, No. PD-1459-13; 2014 WL 1464853 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 16, 2014) (not designated for publication). The Court of Criminal Appeals vacated our judgment and remanded in light of its opinion in Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

The judgment includes an assessment of $905 in court costs. The record contains a certified, signed bill of costs listing $905 in court costs. We review the assessment of court costs on appeal to determine if there is a basis for the costs, not to determine whether there was sufficient evidence offered at trial to prove each cost. Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d at 390. Traditional sufficiency-of-the-evidence standards of review do not apply. Id.

Generally, a bill of costs must (1) contain the items of cost, (2) be signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the cost, and (3) be certified. Id. at 392–93; see Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. arts. 103.001, 103.006. The record supports the assessment of costs in this case because the record contains a bill of costs that contains each item of cost, is signed by a representative of the district clerk’s office who is entitled to receive payment of the costs, and is certified. See Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 393. The fact that the bill of costs was not prepared until after the court signed the judgment does not defeat the lawfulness of the bill of costs. Id. at 394. (“[M]atters pertaining to the imposition of court costs need not be brought to the attention of the trial court, including a bill of costs prepared after a criminal trial.”).

The trial court assessed $905 in costs against appellant. The sum of the itemized costs in the cost bill is $905. There being no challenge to any specific cost or the basis for the assessment of such cost, the bill of costs supports the costs assessed in the judgment. Id. at 396.

2 On remand, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, McCally, and Brown. Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).