Cara Jean Tucker v. State ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                         COURT OF APPEALS
    SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    FORT WORTH
    NO. 02-15-00265-CR
    NO. 02-15-00266-CR
    CARA JEAN TUCKER                                                    APPELLANT
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                       STATE
    ----------
    FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY
    TRIAL COURT NO. 1414221W, 1384896W
    ----------
    MEMORANDUM OPINION1
    ----------
    In this consolidated appeal, Appellant Cara Jean Tucker complains in two
    points of the fines and fees imposed against her when the trial court revoked her
    community supervision. We affirm the judgment as modified.
    1
    See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
    Background
    On October 27, 2014, Appellant pleaded guilty in Cause No. 1384896W to
    the second degree felony offense of aggravated assault recklessly causing
    serious bodily injury pursuant to a plea agreement and was placed on community
    supervision for a period of four years. Appellant was additionally fined $400 and
    ordered to pay a $60 per month community supervision fee.
    On June 1, 2015, Appellant pleaded guilty in Cause No. 1414221W to
    aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and was placed on community
    supervision for a period of 39 months, assessed a $400 fine, and ordered to pay
    a $60 per month community supervision fee.
    On June 12, 2015, the State petitioned the trial court to adjudicate guilt in
    both cases on the basis that Appellant had committed new offenses and had
    failed to perform her community service.       Appellant pleaded true to the new
    offense allegations, and the trial court adjudicated her guilty in both cases on
    June 30, 2015.      The Judgment Adjudicating Guilt in Cause No. 1384896W
    includes $120 in reparations for unpaid community supervision fees.             The
    Judgment Adjudicating Guilt in Cause No. 1414221W includes $450 in
    reparations, $400 of which is for the unpaid fine originally assessed on June 1,
    2015.
    2
    Discussion
    In her first point, Appellant argues that the $400 fine assessed in Cause
    No. 1414221D was not pronounced orally and must therefore be deleted from the
    judgment. The State concedes that the $400 fine cannot be assessed as part of
    the order adjudicating guilt because it was not orally pronounced by the trial
    court. See Taylor v. State, 
    131 S.W.3d 497
    , 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). We
    therefore sustain Appellant’s first point and modify the Judgment Adjudicating
    Guilt in Cause No. 1414221W to delete the $400 fine from the amount of
    reparations assessed.
    In her second point, Appellant argues that the trial court violated her right
    to due process when it assessed reparations of $120 in Cause No. 1384896D
    because her failure to pay the community monthly supervision fee was not
    included in the State’s Petition to Adjudicate Guilt, nor was any evidence that the
    fee was owed entered into the record.         Additionally, Appellant argues that
    probation fees cannot be included as reparations.
    The State did not accuse Appellant of failing to pay her probation fees in its
    petition to proceed to adjudication, nor was her community supervision revoked
    for her failure to pay such fees. Appellant pleaded guilty to the allegations that
    she had violated the terms of community supervision by committing new
    offenses. This is sufficient to uphold the revocation of community supervision.
    See Garcia v. State, 
    387 S.W.3d 20
    , 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (holding that
    3
    proof of a single violation of community supervision conditions is sufficient to
    support an order revoking community supervision) (citing Moore v. State, 
    605 S.W.2d 924
    , 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). There is no authority that the State
    must allege the failure to pay such fees as a ground for revocation in order to
    hold a defendant responsible for unpaid administrative fees. See Edwards v.
    State, Nos. 09-13-00360-CR, 09-13-00361-CR, 
    2014 WL 1400747
    , at *2 (Tex.
    App.—Beaumont Apr. 9, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
    publication) (observing that there is no authority for the proposition that a
    defendant’s responsibility to pay the fees arises only if the State alleges the
    failure to pay as a ground for revocation).
    In granting community supervision, a trial court must fix a fee of no more
    than $60 per month, and if community supervision is later revoked, the trial court
    “shall enter the restitution or reparation due and owing on the date of the
    revocation” in a revocation of a suspended sentence. Tex. Code Crim. Proc.
    Ann. art. 42.03 § 2(b), art. 42.12 § 19(a) (West Supp. 2015). This Court has
    consistently held that unpaid probation fees may be included as reparations in
    judgments adjudicating guilt. See, e.g., Steen v. State, No. 02-13-00559-CR,
    
    2014 WL 4243702
    , at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 28, 2014, pet. ref’d) (mem.
    op., not designated for publication); Strange v. State, No. 02-14-00055-CR, 
    2014 WL 3868225
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 7, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not
    designated for publication) (citing Boyd v. State, No. 02-11-00035-CR, 
    2012 WL 1345751
    , at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 19, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not
    4
    designated for publication)); McKinney v. State, No. 02–12–00479–CR, 
    2014 WL 1510095
    , at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 17, 2014, pet. ref’d); Brown v.
    State, No. 02-08-00063-CR, 
    2009 WL 1905231
    , at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
    July 2, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
    The amount of the community supervision fees owed were supplied by the
    Balance Sheet and the Certified Bill of Costs, both of which are part of the
    record. This is sufficient evidence to support the amount of $120 in community
    supervision fees assessed as reparations. See Steen, 
    2014 WL 4243702
    at *2
    (holding that certified bill of cost “was enough to support inclusion in the
    judgment of $2,507 in statutorily-authorized, community-supervision fees”);
    Houston v. State, 
    410 S.W.3d 475
    , 479 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013, no pet.)
    (holding that certified bill of costs provided support in the record for imposition of
    $570 in court costs owed by appellant); Strother v. State, No. 14-12-00599-CV,
    
    2013 WL 4511360
    , at *3–4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 22, 2013, pet.
    ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); cf. Johnson v. State, 
    423 S.W.3d 385
    , 395–96 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (“[A]lthough a bill of costs is not
    required to sustain statutorily authorized and assessed court costs, it is the most
    expedient, and therefore, preferable method.”). We overrule Appellant’s second
    issue.
    5
    Conclusion
    Having sustained Appellant’s first issue, we modify the Judgment
    Adjudicating Guilt in Cause No. 1414221W to delete the $400 fine.     Having
    overruled Appellant’s second issue, we affirm the judgment in Cause No.
    1414221W as modified and affirm the judgment in Cause No. 1384896W.
    /s/ Bonnie Sudderth
    BONNIE SUDDERTH
    JUSTICE
    PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and SUDDERTH, JJ.
    DO NOT PUBLISH
    Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
    DELIVERED: February 25, 2016
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-15-00266-CR

Filed Date: 2/25/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/1/2016