Fredrichee Douglas Smith v. State, 14-11-00838-CR

Appellant Fredrichee Douglas Smith appealed assessments of court costs in three Harris County trial-court causes (1197969, 1197970, 1208812).
Trial-court judgments ordered Smith to pay $490 in two causes and $490 stated in judgment but a bill of costs for cause 1208812 showed $590.
On original appeal this court deleted specific cost amounts for lack of record support; the Court of Criminal Appeals vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of Johnson v. State.
Supplemental clerk’s records filed on remand included itemized bills of costs signed by a deputy district clerk and certified by the district clerk.
The court reviewed whether the record provided a basis for the assessed costs (per Johnson) and affirmed two judgments; it modified and affirmed the third to match the bill of costs ($590).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the record supports the court-cost amounts in the judgments	Smith argued judgments showed costs not substantiated by the record	State argued bills of costs in supplemental record provide basis for assessed costs	For two causes, bills supported $490; affirmed. For the third, record showed $590, judgment reformed to $590 and affirmed.
Proper standard for appellate review of assessed costs	Smith contended cost amounts required sufficiency proof as in usual evidence review	State relied on Johnson: appellate review checks for a record basis, not traditional sufficiency review	Court applied Johnson: review for a basis in the record, not traditional sufficiency standard.
Whether a bill of costs in the supplemental clerk’s record satisfies requirements	Smith challenged sufficiency of the bills	State pointed to itemized, signed, and certified bills of costs in the supplemental record	Court found bills met statutory/bill requirements and provided the necessary basis.
Whether appellate court may reform judgment to reflect costs in record	Smith opposed modification of judgment amounts without trial court entry	State asked reform to match bill of costs where discrepancy existed	Court held it may reform judgment when record supplies necessary data; reformed cause 1208812 to $590.

Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (appellate review of court costs asks whether record provides a basis, not traditional sufficiency review)
Smith v. State, 463 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (vacating and remanding this court's prior judgments for reconsideration in light of Johnson)
Nolan v. State, 39 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001) (appellate court may reform judgment to accurately reflect record when it has necessary data)