Affirmed and Opinion Filed November 12, 2013.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-12-01121-CR
JOHN PAUL ROBINSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F10-64197-L
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, Lang, and Brown
Opinion by Justice Moseley
A jury convicted John Paul Robinson of aggravated sexual assault of a child. The trial
court assessed punishment at twenty-five years’ imprisonment. In a single issue, Robinson
argues the evidence does not support the trial court’s order that he pay $589 in court costs.
Therefore, Robinson argues, the judgment should be reformed to delete the court costs. The
background of the case and the evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties; thus, we
do not recite them here in detail. Because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue this
memorandum opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(a), 47.4. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Because the clerk’s records did not contain a bill of costs, we ordered the Dallas County
District Clerk to file supplemental records containing the certified bill of costs associated with
this case. The clerk did so, filing two supplemental clerk’s records. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 34.5(c)(1) (allowing supplementation of clerk’s record to include omitted relevant items).
Robinson makes two objections to the supplemental records. He first complains the clerk
did not file a “proper bill of costs” because it is an unsworn, unsigned computer printout. While
the code of criminal procedure requires a record be kept, it does not specify the form of the
record except to state that it must be certified and signed “by the officer who charged the costs or
the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the cost.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.
103.001, .006; Coronel v. State, No. 05–12–00493–CR, 2013 WL 3874446, at *4 (Tex. App.—
Dallas July 29, 2013, no pet.). The district clerk’s supplemental record contains a “Bill of Costs
Certification” containing the costs that have accrued to date; the documents are certified and
signed by the clerk. Because the documents meet the mandate of the code of criminal procedure,
we conclude Robinson’s first objection that the bill of costs is not “proper” lacks merit. See id.
at *4.
Robinson also complains the record does not indicate the bill of costs was filed or
brought to the trial court’s attention before costs were entered. We previously addressed and
overruled this argument in Coronel. See id. at *5.
With the supplemental records containing the bill of costs now before us, we conclude
Robinson’s insufficient evidence complaint lacks merit. See id. at *4-5; Franklin v. State, 402
S.W.3d 894, 894 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.). Accordingly, we overrule Robinson’s sole
issue.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Jim Moseley/
JIM MOSELEY
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
121121F.U05
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
JOHN PAUL ROBINSON, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
No. 5, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-12-01121-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F10-64197-L.
Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Lang and Brown participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 12th day of November, 2013.
/Jim Moseley/
JIM MOSELEY
JUSTICE
–3–