Roderick D. Thomas v. State
445 S.W.3d 288
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Thomas convicted by jury of aggravated robbery in Harris County, Texas, with a ten-year confinement sentence.
- Judgment imposes $274 in court costs; no bill of costs was initially in the record.
- Thomas appeals, challenging sufficiency of evidence supporting the costs in the judgment.
- Appellate court directed supplementation; clerk later provided a bill of costs totaling $329 and modified the judgment.
- Court discusses whether post-judgment cost bills are valid and whether the record supports the awarded costs.
- Court ultimately holds that costs may be assessed post-judgment and that there is sufficient evidence to support costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of post-judgment cost bill | Thomas: supplemental costs cannot modify judgment; no bill of costs in record. | State: costs may be assessed after judgment; bill of costs may be created post-judgment. | Post-judgment cost bill proper; modified judgment disregarded. |
| Due process risk from post-judgment costs | Thomas: may not challenge costs listed in post-judgment bill. | Thomas still had opportunities to contest costs via amendments or other procedures. | No procedural prejudice; avenues exist to challenge costs. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support costs | Thomas: insufficient evidence to support $274 in costs. | Record supports numerous statutory costs; at least $274 supported. | Sufficient evidence supports the judgment awarding costs. |
| Bill of costs compliance under article 103.001 | Cost bill in supplemental record may not satisfy article 103.001 requirements. | Assessment in supplemental record fulfills article 103.001; proper certification appears. | Supplemental cost bill complies with article 103.001; objections rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bates, 889 S.W.2d 306 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (court may correct clerical errors; no judicial omissions after plenary jurisdiction)
- Owen v. State, 352 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011) (costs must be supported by the record; statutory authority required)
- Cardenas v. State, 2013 WL 460437 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013) (bill of costs can be created post-judgment; discussed in context of costs)
- Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (sufficiency of evidence for costs; contemporaneous objection not required on appeal)
- Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2009) (due process protections in post-judgment cost collection)
- Chambers v. State, 194 S.W.2d 774 (Tex. Crim. App. 1946) (evidence created post-judgment may not be used to support judgment)
- Lamb v. State, 931 S.W.2d 611 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1996) (post-judgment evidence rules; limitations on evidence after judgment)
- Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (costs are collateral consequences; not punitive)