Thaylias Glover v. State ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                   NO. 12-18-00252-CR
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
    TYLER, TEXAS
    THAYLIAS GLOVER,                                 §          APPEAL FROM THE 114TH
    APPELLANT
    V.                                               §          JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
    APPELLEE                                         §          SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Thaylias Glover appeals his conviction of burglary of a habitation. In one issue, Appellant
    argues that the trial court improperly assessed court costs in its judgment. We modify and affirm
    as modified.
    BACKGROUND
    Appellant was charged by indictment with burglary of a habitation and pleaded “guilty.”
    A jury assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for twenty years. The trial court
    sentenced Appellant accordingly, and this appeal followed.
    COURT COSTS
    In his sole issue, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in assessing in its judgment
    court costs of $250.00 for “DNA Testing - Sexual Offense” because such costs cannot be assessed
    against a defendant not charged with a sexual offense. We review Appellant’s issue as a challenge
    to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting court costs.
    Standard of Review and Applicable Law
    A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting court costs is reviewable on direct
    appeal in a criminal case. See Armstrong v. State, 
    340 S.W.3d 759
    , 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
    We measure sufficiency by reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the award. Mayer
    v. State, 
    309 S.W.3d 552
    , 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Cardenas v. State, 
    403 S.W.3d 377
    , 382
    (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.). Requiring a convicted defendant to pay court costs
    does not alter the range of punishment, is authorized by statute, and is generally not conditioned
    on a defendant’s ability to pay. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.16 (West 2018);
    
    Armstrong, 340 S.W.3d at 767
    ; see also Johnson v. State, 
    405 S.W.3d 350
    , 353 (Tex. App.–Tyler
    2013, no pet.).
    Evidence Supporting Assessment of Costs
    The judgment of conviction reflects that the trial court assessed $479.00 in court costs. The
    judgment includes a document identified as “Attachment A Order to Withdraw Funds,” which
    states that Appellant has incurred “[c]ourt costs, fees and/or fines and/or restitution” in the amount
    of $479.00. The certified bill of costs itemizes the court costs imposed, including the imposition
    of court costs of $250.00 for “DNA Testing Fee - Sexual Offense.” The State concedes that the
    imposition of court costs for DNA testing is improper in light of the allegations against Appellant
    and further concedes that there is no indication that Appellant was subjected to DNA testing. We
    agree. Therefore, we hold that the costs imposed in the trial court’s judgment for “DNA Testing -
    Sexual Offense” are not supported by sufficient evidence. Appellant’s sole issue is sustained.
    CONCLUSION
    Having sustained Appellant’s sole issue, we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect
    that the amount of court costs is $229.00. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b). We also modify Attachment
    A to state that the total amount of “court costs, fees and/or fines and/or restitution” is $229.00.
    See, e.g., Reyes v. State, 
    324 S.W.3d 865
    , 868 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2010, no pet.). We affirm the
    trial court’s judgment as modified. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b).
    BRIAN HOYLE
    Justice
    Opinion delivered July 10, 2019.
    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
    (DO NOT PUBLISH)
    2
    COURT OF APPEALS
    TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    JUDGMENT
    JULY 10, 2019
    NO. 12-18-00252-CR
    THAYLIAS GLOVER,
    Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
    Appellee
    Appeal from the 114th District Court
    of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0525-18)
    THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record and the briefs
    filed herein, and the same being inspected, it is the opinion of the Court that the judgment of the
    trial court below should be modified and, as modified, affirmed.
    It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
    of the court below be modified to reflect that the amount of court costs is $229.00. We also
    modify Attachment A to state that the total amount of “court costs, fees and/or fines and/or
    restitution” is $229.00; and as modified, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed; and that this
    decision be certified to the trial court below for observance.
    Brian Hoyle, Justice.
    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-18-00252-CR

Filed Date: 7/10/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/12/2019