Brian Cook v. The State of TexasAppeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County (memorandum opinion )

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-12-00204-CR BRIAN COOK, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 52nd District Court Coryell County, Texas Trial Court No. FISC-11-20887 MEMORANDUM OPINION In two issues, appellant, Brian Thomas Cook, challenges the amount of court costs assessed by the trial court. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND On August 30, 2011, appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated sexual assault of a child, a first-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021 (West Supp. 2012). Appellant subsequently entered an open plea of guilty to the charged offense. The trial court accepted appellant s plea and sentenced him to twelve years incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice with no fine. In addition, the trial court ordered that appellant pay $599.00 in court costs. An order to withdraw funds from appellant s inmate account was incorporated in the judgment. This appeal followed. II. ANALYSIS In his brief, appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the amount of court costs assessed by the trial court in this case because there was no bill of costs prepared, though required by article 103.001 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 103.001 (West 2006). Though not available to counsel at the time appellant s brief was filed, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has recently held that a bill of costs need not be included in the record to support the assessment of mandatory or statutorily-authorized court costs. Johnson v. State, No. PD-0193-13, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 240, at **25-26 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 26, 2014); see Cardenas v. State, No. PD-0733-13, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 236, at *3 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 26, 2014). Thus, if the court costs in this case are mandatory or authorized by statute, then a bill of costs was not required to be included in the record. In the instant case, a bill of costs was not originally included in the record. However, after abating and remanding this proceeding, the trial-court clerk created a supplemental clerk s record containing an itemized bill of costs documenting the costs incurred from August 30, 2011 to May 24, 2013. See Johnson, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 240, at **15-16 (concluding that a bill of costs can be prepared and added to the Cook v. State Page 2 record via a supplemental clerk s record); see also Jones v. State, No. 06-12-00107-CR, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 2832, at *16 (Tex. App. Texarkana Mar. 19, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). As shown in the table below, the complained-of costs are mandated by statute: Fee Assessed Amount Child Abuse Prevention $100 Fund/Off. After 9/01/05 Consolidated Court Cost $133 District Clerk Filing Fee $40 Records Management Preservation Fee & $25 Courthouse Security Fee $5 Arrest Fee $5 Indigent Legal Services $2 Judicial Support Fee: Criminal $4 Jury Reimbursement $6 Time Payment Fee $25 District Technology Fee $4 DNA Fee on Sex-Related After $250 Cook v. State Statutory Authority TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.0186(a)(1) (West Supp. 2013). TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE ANN. § 133.102(a)(1) (West Supp. 2013). TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.005(a) (West 2006). TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.005(f) (West 2006). TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.017(a) (West Supp. 2013). TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.011(a)(1) (West Supp. 2013). TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE ANN. § 133.107(a) (West Supp. 2013). TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE ANN. § 133.105(a) (West 2008). TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.0045(a) (West Supp. 2013). TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE ANN. § 133.103(a) (West Supp. 2013). TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.0169(a) (West Supp. 2013). TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Page 3 9/1/2001 ANN. art. 102.020(a)(1) (West Supp. 2013). Therefore, because the complained-of costs contained in the bill of costs are mandated by statute, we reject appellant s complaints about the absence of a bill of costs in the record. See Johnson, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 240, at **25-26; Cardenas, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 236, at *3; Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552, 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (stating that we review the sufficiency of the evidence to support the award of costs by viewing all record evidence in the light most favorable to the award); see also Thomas v. State, No. 01-12-00487-CR, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 2989, at **913 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 21, 2013, no pet.) (concluding that sufficient evidence supports the judgment awarding costs that are mandated by statute). We do note, however, that the bill of costs appears to reverse the jury-reimbursement and judicial-support fees. Article 102.0045 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states that a person convicted of an offense shall pay, as court costs, $4 for jury reimbursement. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.0045. On the other hand, section 133.105(a) of the Texas Local Government Code provides that a person convicted of an offense shall pay, as court costs, $6 for court-related purposes for the support of the judiciary. TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE ANN. § 133.105(a). Though the fee assessments for these line items are incorrect, we recognize that the net result is the same. As such, any error associated with the bill of costs is harmless. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we overrule both of appellant s issues on appeal. III. Cook v. State CONCLUSION Page 4 We affirm the judgment of the trial court. AL SCOGGINS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed March 13, 2014 Do not publish [CR25] Cook v. State Page 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.