Opinion
NO. 14-12-00586-CR
05-15-2014
MICHAEL JOSEPH SNOWDEN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion on Remand filed May 15, 2014.
On Appeal from the 179th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1285227
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND
Appellant Michael Joseph Snowden appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child. On original submission, appellant argued that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the court's costs of $639 reflected in the judgment. We agreed and modified the trial court's judgment to delete the specific amount of costs assessed. Snowden v. State, No. 14-12-00586-CR; 2013 WL 1136600 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] March 19, 2013) vacated andremanded, No. PD-370-13; 2014 WL 1512902 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 16, 2014). The Court of Criminal Appeals vacated our judgment and remanded in light of its opinion in Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
We review the assessment of court costs on appeal to determine if there is a basis for the costs, not to determine whether there was sufficient evidence offered at trial to prove each cost. Id. at 390. Traditional sufficiency-of-the-evidence standards of review do not apply. Id.
Generally, a bill of costs must (1) contain the items of cost, (2) be signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the cost, and (3) be certified. Id. at 392-93; see Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. arts. 103.001, 103.006. The record in this case contains a computer-screen printout of the Harris County Justice Information Management System (JIMS) "Cost Bill Assessment." In Johnson, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that a JIMS report constitutes an appropriate bill of costs because the report itemized the accrued court costs, was certified by the district clerk, and was signed by a deputy clerk. Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 393. The JIMS report in this record is a compliant bill of costs because it contains an itemized list of costs, is certified by the district clerk, and is signed by a deputy district clerk. See id. at 392-93; Perez v. State, No. 14-12-00893-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] April 22, 2014, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The fact that the bill of costs was not prepared until after the court signed the judgment does not defeat the lawfulness of the bill of costs. Id. at 394. ("[M]atters pertaining to the imposition of court costs need not be brought to the attention of the trial court, including a bill of costs prepared after a criminal trial.").
The trial court assessed $639 in costs against appellant. The sum of the itemized costs in the JIMS report is $639. There being no challenge to any specific cost or the basis for the assessment of such cost, the bill of costs supports the $639 costs assessed in the judgment. Id. at 396.
On remand, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison, and McCally. Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).