NO. 12-23-00139-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
DEKEIDRIAN KESHUN ROLLINS, § APPEAL FROM THE 349TH APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § HOUSTON COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION Dekeidrian Keshun Rollins appeals the revocation of his community supervision. In his sole issue, Appellant argues the bill of costs erroneously reflects he must repay his court appointed attorney’s fees. We modify the bill of costs and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
BACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with burglary of a building. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pleaded “guilty” and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for three years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt. After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion and assessed Appellant’s punishment at two years confinement. This appeal followed.
— 2 —
BILL OF COSTS In his sole issue, Appellant argues that the bill of costs contains an inaccurate assessment of costs. Specifically, he urges that the bill of costs incorrectly requires him to reimburse his court-appointed attorney’s fees. He contends we should modify the bill of costs to delete those fees. The State agrees, and so do we. At the hearing, the trial court assessed costs “as calculated by the clerk.” The clerk later submitted a “Revocation Bill of Costs” that included $317 in court costs and $675 in attorney’s fees. The original judgment stated that Appellant “has financial resources that enable [Appellant] to offset in part or in whole the cost of the legal services provided to [Appellant]” and further orders Appellant to pay the court appointed attorney’s fees in his case. However, the trial court has since entered two nunc pro tunc judgments, the second of which deleted this special finding and lists only court costs of $317. The bill of costs has not been corrected to reflect the nunc pro tunc judgment. “A defendant who is determined by the court to be indigent is presumed to remain indigent for the remainder of the proceedings in the case unless a material change in the defendant’s financial circumstances occurs.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC ANN. art. 26.04(p) (West Supp. 2023); see Fulmer v. State, 401 S.W.3d 305, 318–19 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2013, pet. ref’d) (holding trial court erred in ordering indigent criminal defendant to pay court-appointed attorney’s fees absent evidence of a material change in financial circumstances). Here, nothing in the record shows a material change in Appellant’s financial circumstances since counsel was appointed to represent him. Absent a showing of a material change in Appellant’s financial circumstances, it was error for the district clerk to assess attorney’s fees against Appellant in the bill of costs. See Benavidez v. State, 423 S.W.3d 520, 522 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2014, no pet.). Because the assessment of attorney’s fees against Appellant was erroneous, it must be corrected. Accordingly, we reform the bill of costs to delete the assessment of attorney’s fees. See Green v. State, No. 04–13–00018–CR, 2013 WL 6200328, at *2 (Tex. App.–San Antonio Nov. 27, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (reforming both judgment and bill of costs to delete assessment of attorney’s fees against indigent criminal defendant). We sustain Appellant’s sole issue.
— 3 —
DISPOSITION Based on the foregoing, we modify the trial court’s bill of costs by deleting the assessment of attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s second nunc pro tunc judgment.
JAMES T. WORTHEN Chief Justice
Opinion delivered February 22, 2024. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
FEBRUARY 22, 2024
NO. 12-23-00139-CR
DEKEIDRIAN KESHUN ROLLINS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Appeal from the 349th District Court of Houston County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 21CR-064)
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 bill of costs of the trial court below should be modified. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the bill of costs of the court below be modified to delete the assessment of attorney’s fees; the trial court’s second nunc pro tunc judgment is affirmed; and that this decision be certified to the trial court below for observance.
James T. Worthen, Chief Justice. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.