Dale Dewayne Bullock v. State, 13-16-00549-CR

Dale Dewayne Bullock was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment and a $6,500 fine.
The trial court's written judgment referenced Penal Code section 22.02 but omitted subsection (a)(2).
The judgment also assessed $264 in court costs; a bill of costs listed a $25 time-payment fee contingent on nonpayment within 31 days.
The record contains no evidence that Bullock paid any portion of the fines or costs within 31 days of judgment.
Bullock appealed, arguing (1) the $25 time-payment fee lacked a statutory basis at the time the judgment was signed, and (2) the judgment omitted the correct statutory subsection for the offense.
The State conceded the judgment should be reformed to cite section 22.02(a)(2); the court considered both issues on appeal.

Issue	Bullock's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the $25 time-payment fee was statutorily authorized	Fee improperly imposed because 31-day triggering period had not yet elapsed when judgment was signed	No payments appear in the record; the statutory 31-day period lapsed without payment, so fee is authorized	Fee was properly assessed; not deleted
Whether the judgment must be reformed to show the correct statute	Judgment omitted subsection (a)(2); should be modified to reflect the precise statute	Agreed the judgment should be reformed to show section 22.02(a)(2)	Court reformed the judgment to reflect section 22.02(a)(2)

Houston v. State, 410 S.W.3d 475 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013) (court costs are legislatively mandated obligations)
Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (appellate review asks whether there is a basis for assessed costs)
Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (appellate courts may reform incorrect judgments when required data are available)