In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-18-00176-CR
___________________________
KENDRA PHILLIANA MAXION, Appellant
V.
The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 297th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1398848D
Before Gabriel, Pittman, and Bassel, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a single point, Appellant Kendra Philliana Maxion challenges the reparations
ordered in the judgment adjudicating her guilt. Because the record does not support
the reparations, we delete them from the order to withdraw funds and from the
judgment and affirm the judgment as modified.
In 2015, the trial court placed Maxion on five years’ deferred-adjudication
community supervision. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(b)(2)(A) (West 2016). The
State ultimately filed a sixth amended petition to proceed to adjudication, alleging that
Maxion had violated eight conditions of her community supervision. The trial court
held a hearing at which the State waived several violations, and Maxion pleaded true
to the remaining violations. The trial court accepted Maxion’s pleas of true,
adjudicated her guilty of the original offense of evading arrest or detention with a
motor vehicle, and sentenced her to six years’ imprisonment.
The judgment orders Maxion to pay reparations in the amount of $555. The
record contains a “Revocation Restitution/Reparation Balance Sheet,” which was
produced by the Community Supervision and Corrections Department of Tarrant
County on April 3, 2018, and reflects that the $555 in reparations consists of $540 in
probation fees and $15 in fees “DUE TO CSCD.” The record also contains (1) a
certified bill of costs reflecting total court costs of $0.00 and (2) a “List of Fee
Breakdowns,” which was prepared by the Tarrant County District Clerk on April 3,
2018, and shows $0.00 probation fees remaining.
2
In her sole point on appeal, Maxion argues that the trial court violated her right
to due process when it imposed money “DUE TO CSCD” and probation fees as
reparations in the judgment. The State concedes that the $15 fee “DUE TO CSCD”
should be deleted from the reparations total because there is no statutory basis for the
fee. We agree. See Lewis v. State, 423 S.W.3d 451, 461 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013,
pet. ref’d) (striking from the reparations total the amount “Due to CSCD” because
there was no support in the record to show where the amount came from); see also
Demerson v. State, No. 02-18-00003-CR, 2018 WL 3580893, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth July 26, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (collecting
cases from this court deleting fees “Due to CSCD”). We therefore sustain the
portion of Maxion’s sole point challenging the portion of reparations that represents
fees “DUE TO CSCD.”
With regard to the portion of the reparations that represents probation fees,
Maxion challenges that reparations can be defined broadly enough to include
probation fees. We have repeatedly rejected this argument, and we decline to
reexamine the argument here. 1 Zamarripa v. State, 506 S.W.3d 715, 716 (Tex. App.—
Fort Worth 2016, pet. ref’d); Tucker v. State, Nos. 02-15-00265-CR, 02-15-00266-CR,
2016 WL 742087, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 25, 2016, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.,
not designated for publication).
1
Maxion’s brief acknowledges that this court has held contrary to her argument.
3
Because the statement of an issue is treated as covering every subsidiary
question that is fairly included, we broadly construe Maxion’s argument to also
challenge the trial court’s imposition of probation fees. See generally Tex. R. App. P.
38.1(f) (stating rule on issues presented in briefs). The trial court may include fees—
such as probation fees—in the judgment, but to include such fees, the State must
supply evidence that the defendant actually owes them. See Strange v. State, No. 02-14-
00055-CR, 2014 WL 3868225, at * 1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 7, 2014, no pet.)
(mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Lewis, 423 S.W.3d at 460–61). The
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has noted that although a bill of costs is not
required to support a judgment for costs, “it is the most expedient, and therefore,
preferable method.” Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385, 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
Here, the State did not allege the nonpayment of probation fees and did not
offer any evidence that Maxion was in arrears. Moreover, the certified bill of costs, as
well as the “List of Fee Breakdowns,” shows that Maxion did not owe probation fees.
Because the State did not allege that Maxion had violated her community supervision
by not paying the probation fees, because the State did not prove that Maxion had not
paid the probation fees as ordered in her conditions of community supervision, and
because the trial court did not find that Maxion had not paid the probation fees as
ordered, we hold that the record does not support the probation fees, which were
listed as reparations and ordered to be paid in the judgment. See Strange, 2014 WL
3868225, at *2. Accordingly, we sustain the remainder of Maxion’s sole point.
4
Having sustained Maxion’s sole point challenging the reparations ordered in the
judgment, we delete $555 from the order to withdraw funds so that it reflects that $0
should be withdrawn from Maxion’s inmate trust account; we delete the line in the
judgment that states, “REPARATIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $555”; and we
affirm the judgment as modified. See Hill v. State, No. 02-17-00088-CR, 2017 WL
3821898, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 31, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication) (striking reparations when the only evidence for probation
fees was contradictory); Strange, 2014 WL 3868225, at *2 (same).
/s/ Dabney Bassel
Dabney Bassel
Justice
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: December 31, 2018
5