COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-13-00559-CR
PAUL BARTON STEEN II APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1149522D
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Paul Barton Steen II appeals the trial court’s judgment ordering
him to pay community-supervision fees and requests the deletion of such fees
because the trial court failed to find Appellant owed the fees and because the
State failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Appellant owed the
fees. We affirm.
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
I. BACKGROUND
On November 30, 2009, Appellant pleaded guilty to injury to a child. See
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.04 (West Supp. 2014). Following Appellant’s open
guilty plea, the trial court deferred adjudicating his guilt and placed Appellant on
five years’ community supervision. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12,
§ 5(a) (West Supp. 2014). One of the community-supervision conditions required
Appellant to pay several community-supervision fees: a $60 monthly-supervision
fee; a $20 Crime Stoppers fee; and the cost of periodic drug testing. See id.
§§ 5(a), 11(a), 19(a) (West Supp. 2014).
On June 7, 2012, the State filed a motion to proceed to adjudication,
alleging that Appellant violated five community-supervision conditions, including
payment of community-supervision fees. On November 8, 2013, Appellant
pleaded true to all of the violations except the failure to pay community-
supervision fees. On November 11, the State filed a signed and certified “Bill of
Cost” listing “Reparation (Probation Fees)” as $2,507. On November 12, the trial
court “signed and entered” a judgment revoking Appellant’s community
supervision, adjudicating him guilty of injury to a child, sentencing him to twelve
years’ confinement, and ordering him to pay $2,507 in reparations.
II. DISCUSSION
In one issue, Appellant argues that the reparations amount should be
deleted from the judgment because the trial court did not specifically find that he
failed to pay the community-supervision fees and because there was insufficient
2
evidence to support a finding that he failed to pay or that he owed the ordered
amount.
A. SPECIFIC FINDING OF NONPAYMENT
First, Appellant argues that the reparations should be deleted from the
judgment because the trial court did not make a specific finding that he had not
paid the community-supervision fees. Appellant pleaded true to four other
community-supervision violations, which were unrelated to his nonpayment of
community-supervision fees. Each of these undisputed violations was sufficient
to support the revocation of his community supervision. Garcia v. State, 387
S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926
(Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Stafford v. State, 487 S.W.2d 337, 338 (Tex. Crim. App.
1972). Therefore, it was unnecessary for the court to make a specific finding that
Appellant failed to pay his community-supervision fees. Cf. Tex. Code Crim.
Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 21(c) (West Supp. 2014) (requiring proof by a
preponderance of the evidence of failure to pay community-supervision fees if
failure to pay is only alleged violation in petition to revoke).
B. SUFFICIENT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
Appellant also argues that “[t]here was simply no evidence presented to
show that [he] failed to pay probation fees at all, much less a specific amount.”
Appellant seems to argue that the State had to prove nonpayment by a
preponderance of the evidence.
3
Community-supervision fees are mandated by statute and must be
included in the judgment upon revocation of community supervision. Tex. Code
Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 42.03, § 2(b) & 42.12, §§ 19(a), 23(a) (West Supp. 2014);
see also Edwards v. State, Nos. 09-13-00360-CR, 09-13-00361-CR, 2014 WL
1400747, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 9, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication) (upholding reparations for unpaid community-
supervision fees when deferred-adjudication order set out fees and record
included balance sheet setting out owed fees). Appellant was aware of the
amount of community-supervision fees ordered because the specific amounts
were included in the judgment deferring adjudication of his guilt and placing him
on community supervision. The certified bill of cost, included in the record of this
case, showing Appellant owed $2,507 in community-supervision fees at the time
of the revocation hearing, was enough to support inclusion in the judgment of
$2,507 in statutorily-authorized, community-supervision fees. E.g., Collazo v.
State, No. 09-13-00458-CR, 2014 WL 2922243, at *3 (Tex. App.—Beaumont
June 25, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Edwards,
2014 WL 1400747, at *2–3; Conner v. State, 418 S.W.3d 742, 744 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.); Strother v. State, No. 14-12-00599-CV, 2013
WL 4511360, at *3–4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 22, 2013, pet. ref’d)
(mem. op., not designated for publication); cf. Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385,
395–96 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (“[A]lthough a bill of costs is not required to
4
sustain statutorily authorized and assessed court costs, it is the most expedient,
and therefore, preferable method.”). We overrule Appellant’s issue.
III. CONCLUSION
Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
/s/ Lee Gabriel
LEE GABRIEL
JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: August 28, 2014
5