Jorge Luis Ramirez v. State, 13-15-00220-CR

Jorge Ramirez pled guilty to burglary (plea bargain: 2 years suspended, 4 years community supervision) and later admitted violation at a revocation hearing.
After a 2015 arrest in Baldwin County, Alabama, Live Oak County hired a private company (United States Prisoner Transport Service) to bring Ramirez back; invoice showed $1,630 for transport.
The trial court revoked Ramirez’s probation, sentenced him to 180 days in state jail (credit for time served), imposed the original $1,000 fine, and assessed total court costs of $2,392.25 (including the $1,630 transport fee).
Ramirez moved for a new trial limited to court costs, arguing no statute authorizes assessing the county’s actual private-transport expense and that the statute mandates a mileage-based calculation (29¢/mile); the recorded roundtrip distance implied $410.06 allowable transport cost.
The trial court denied the motion for new trial; Ramirez appealed seeking reformation of court costs to reflect only statutorily authorized amounts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ramirez)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held (trial court)
Whether the court may assess as court costs the county’s actual expense for a private prisoner transport service (extradition)	Statute (Art. 102.011) limits transport costs to a mileage formula; the county cannot recover the private carrier’s invoice as court costs	County can recover transport-related costs it incurred (implicitly argued by admitting invoice and seeking assessment)	Trial court assessed the full private-transport invoice ($1,630) as a court cost and denied Ramirez’s motion to correct costs
Whether the assessed transport charge could be characterized as restitution or otherwise recoverable outside Art. 102.011	Not restitution (restitution pays victims), and Art. 102.011 is the exclusive statutory authorization for such fees, so assessment was unauthorized	County treated amount as reimbursement to the sheriff’s office (not restitution); sought to include it in court costs	Trial court did not treat the amount as restitution; it was included in the bill of costs and upheld at the motion-for-new-trial hearing

Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (only statutorily authorized court costs may be assessed)
Camacho v. Samaniego, 831 S.W.2d 804 (Tex. 1992) (sheriff may collect only fees enumerated in the Code of Criminal Procedure)
Habib v. State, 431 S.W.3d 737 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2014) (use of mileage calculations under Art. 102.011 to determine permissible transport costs)