Francisco Javier Tafolla v. State ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                     In The
    Court of Appeals
    Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
    No. 06-12-00122-CR
    FRANCISCO JAVIER TAFOLLA, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 115th District Court
    Upshur County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 16,050
    Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
    Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Francisco Javier Tafolla pled guilty to aggravated robbery and was sentenced to forty-
    five years’ imprisonment. He was ordered to pay $249.00 in court costs. On appeal, Tafolla
    argues that the trial court erred in awarding court costs because they were not supported by the
    statutorily required bill of costs. The State concedes that “no bill of costs has been submitted
    outlining the breakdown of court costs.”
    “A clerk of a court is required to keep a fee record, and a statement of an item therein is
    prima facie evidence of the correctness of the statement.” Owen v. State, 
    352 S.W.3d 542
    , 548
    (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011, no pet.) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 103.009(a), (c)
    (West 2006)). “A cost is not payable by the person charged with the cost until a written bill is
    produced or is ready to be produced, containing the items of cost, signed by the officer who
    charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the cost.” TEX. CODE CRIM.
    PROC. ANN. art. 103.001 (West 2006). “In other words, a certified bill of costs imposes an
    obligation upon a criminal defendant to pay court costs, irrespective of whether or not that bill is
    incorporated by reference into the written judgment.” 
    Owen, 352 S.W.3d at 547
    . Absent a
    certified bill of costs, the record is insufficient to support the order of court costs.
    Because our independent review of the record confirms a lack of support for the award of
    court costs, we modify the trial court’s judgment to delete the imposition of court costs. The
    judgment is affirmed, as modified. See Johnson v. State, No. 14-11-00639-CR, 
    2012 WL 4878803
    , at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 16, 2012, no pet.); Levingston v. State,
    2
    No. 01-10-00561-CR, 
    2011 WL 5599973
    , at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 17, 2011,
    no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 1
    Jack Carter
    Justice
    Date Submitted:         December 19, 2012
    Date Decided:           December 20, 2012
    Do Not Publish
    1
    Although these unpublished cases have no precedential value, we may take guidance from them “as an aid in
    developing reasoning that may be employed.” Carrillo v. State, 
    98 S.W.3d 789
    , 794 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003,
    pet. ref'd).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-12-00122-CR

Filed Date: 12/20/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015