Major Thomas Davis v. State, 03-16-00334-CR

Appellant Major Thomas Davis pleaded guilty to evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle (Tex. Penal Code § 38.04(a); elevated by § 38.04(b)(2)(A) to a third-degree felony) and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.
The district-court judgment ordered $251.00 in court costs, including a $25 sheriff’s fee assessed payable after release; the bill of costs in the record shows no payments.
The record indicates Davis was arrested without a warrant (offense in officer’s presence), a warrant was issued/returned the day after arrest, and Davis received jail credit from arrest to sentencing (he was not released pretrial).
Appellant contends the statutory fees available under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 102.011 that actually could apply on this record (arrest without warrant; commitment/release; and limited mileage) total $10.87, not $25, so the $25 sheriff’s fee lacks a statutory basis.
Appellant also notes the judgment lists the offense statute only as “38.04 Penal Code” and asks that the judgment be reformed to cite § 38.04(a) and § 38.04(b)(2)(A) specifically.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held / Relief Sought
Whether the $25 sheriff’s fee in the judgment is statutorily authorized on this record	Article 102.011 authorizes only fees actually performed and shown in the record; here only $5 (arrest without warrant) + $5 (commitment/release) + $0.87 (3 miles × $0.29) = $10.87 are supported, so the $25 charge must be reduced	(Implicit) Article 102.011 authorizes a range of sheriff fees and courts in some unpublished opinions have allowed fees within that range (e.g., up to $25)	Appellant asks the court to modify the judgment to reduce the sheriff’s fee to the statutory amount supported by the record (approximately $10.87)
Whether the judgment correctly identifies the statute for the offense	The judgment’s citation “38.04 Penal Code” is incomplete; it should specify § 38.04(a) (the offense) and § 38.04(b)(2)(A) (the felony level) so the record speaks truth	(Implicit) No meaningful dispute that the citation is imprecise; courts have authority to reform judgments to correct statutory citations	Appellant asks the court to reform the judgment to list the precise Penal Code subsections (§ 38.04(a) and § 38.04(b)(2)(A))

Camacho v. Samaniego, 831 S.W.2d 804 (Tex. 1992) (only certain sheriff fees may be collected in criminal matters and fees must be statutorily enumerated)
Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (court costs may be challenged on appeal; only statutorily authorized costs may be assessed)
Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (appellate courts may modify incorrect judgments when data to do so is available)
French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (appellate power to reform judgments to make the record speak the truth)
In re P.M.G., 405 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013) (appellate courts may judicially notice easily ascertainable geographic facts, e.g., distances)
Hendee v. Dewhurst, 228 S.W.3d 354 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007) (appellate courts exercise discretion in taking judicial notice and are reluctant to do so for evidence not presented to the trial court)