Sherilyn Rose Angulo v. State ( 2020 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-20-00016-CR
SHERILYN ROSE ANGULO, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 7th District Court
Smith County, Texas
Trial Court No. 007-1547-18
Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Stevens
MEMORANDUM OPINION
After having pled guilty to the offense of burglary of a building, 1 Sherilyn Rose Angulo
was sentenced to two years’ incarceration, suspended in favor of five years’ community
supervision. In this appeal of the judgment revoking community supervision and sentencing her
to the originally imposed term of two years’ incarceration, Angulo brings a single point of error,
claiming that the trial court erred in imposing costs of court in an amount not supported by a proper
bill of 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, 547
(Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011, no pet.) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 103.009(a), (c)).
“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.” Id. (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.
103.001). That said, once a certified bill of costs is issued, the bill “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.” Id.; see Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759, 765 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2011).
Specifically, Angulo claims that, although the trial court ordered her to pay $174.00 in its
judgment, a certified bill of costs was not made a part of the record. After Angulo filed her brief,
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(c)(1).
2
the Smith County 2 District Clerk filed a supplemental record which included a certified bill of
costs listing total court costs of $174.00, as reflected in the trial court’s judgment. In view of this
filing, the State advised this Court that it declined to file a brief.
Because the trial court’s judgment is supported by a proper bill of costs, Angulo’s sole
point of error is now moot. Consequently, this case does not present a live controversy. When an
appeal does not present a live controversy, the appeal is properly dismissed as moot. See Fouke v.
State, 529 S.W.2d 772, 773 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (dismissing appeal as moot because defendant
voluntarily paid fine and costs complained of in appeal); Laney v. State, 223 S.W.3d 656, 659
(Tex. App.—Tyler 2007, no pet.) (stating generally that appeals presenting no actual controversy
are dismissed as moot).
We dismiss this appeal as moot.
Scott E. Stevens
Justice
Date Submitted: April 15, 2020
Date Decided: April 16, 2020
Do Not Publish
2
Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals in Tyler, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas
Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. We are unaware of
any conflict between precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 41.3.
3