holding that a claim that “there was no basis in the record to support the trial court’s determination that the appellant had financial resources and, as a result, the ability to pay at least a portion of the cost of his defense” was a claim “challenging the imposition of costs”
How later courts described this case
- holding that a claim that “there was no basis in the record to support the trial court’s determination that the appellant had financial resources and, as a result, the ability to pay at least a portion of the cost of his defense” was a claim “challenging the imposition of costs”
- holding that a criminal defendant has constructive notice of mandatory court-costs statutes, that supplementation of a record on appeal with a bill of costs is proper given the special nature of court costs, and that such supplementation does not prejudice a criminal defendant
- holding that because court costs have no bearing on guilt or sentence, “matters 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”
- finding that a printout of itemized court costs accrued in the defendant’s case constituted a bill of costs and holding that a bill of costs is a relevant item that can be prepared and added to the record via a supplemental clerk’s record
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
COCHRAN, J.,
filed a concurring opinion.
I join the Court’s opinion. I write separately only to suggest that if a defendant has legitimate concerns about the correct imposition or amount of court costs, his issue is best addressed on direct appeal while he has an attorney and the necessary documents are easily created, reviewed, and, if necessary, revised. Furthermore, appellate courts may order an abatement to the trial court to address evidentiary sufficiency or financial ability issues in an appropriate case.
Thus, if the record does not already contain a bill of costs that lists out the various mandatory and discretionary assessments, the conscientious attorney will ask for its preparation and inclusion in the appellate record. He can then review the various components to ensure that each item is, in fact, properly entered 1 and that the total cost is a correct sum of its constituent parts. In the vast majority of cases that we have recently reviewed, the court costs have been correctly computed and entered, but there have been occasional errors which could be easily repaired if the mistake is pointed out early in the process. Furthermore, if the appellate attorney gives his client a copy of the itemized bill of costs, the defendant will not be surprised when county officials begin collection efforts under Chapter 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2
With these comments, I join the Court’s opinion.
. Some "mandatory” costs are only for certain types of cases, yet some cost bills have included those "mandatory” costs in other types of cases.
. Although a defendant may file a motion requesting a correction of costs under Article 103.008, this procedure is, at best, clumsy and difficult. As the Court correctly notes, a bill of costs filed with the appellate record "is the most expedient, and therefore, preferable method” of informing the defendant of the court costs assessed and of correcting them if necessary. Majority op. at 396.