In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-23-00077-CR
ADRIAN FERNANDO URIBETA, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 47th District Court
Randall County, Texas
Trial Court No. 31500A, Honorable Dee Johnson, Presiding
August 15, 2023
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.
Appellant, Adrian Fernando Uribeta, appeals the amount of fines assessed and a
“time payment fee” charged against him in judgments convicting him of aggravated
assault with a deadly weapon and theft of a firearm. We modify the judgments and affirm.
BACKGROUND
Because both of Appellant’s issues challenge the assessment of charges
contained in the judgments’ bill of costs,1 we will limit our discussion of the facts to those
relevant to these issues. After the jury found Appellant guilty as noted above, it returned
verdicts assessing a $2,000 fine for each charge. When the trial court entered the
judgments, it ordered the sentences to run concurrently. However, the attached bill of
costs, which was incorporated by reference into the judgments, cumulates the fines and
reflects that Appellant owes $4,000 in fines. Further, the bill of costs charges Appellant
a $15 “time payment fee.” Appellant timely appealed. By his appeal, he challenges the
cumulated $4,000 fine and $15 time payment fee.2
ANALYSIS
Preservation of Error
Initially, we must assess whether Appellant has properly preserved his complaints
regarding charges assessed in the bill of costs. Where, as here, the bill of costs was “not
prepared until weeks after judgment was entered[,] Appellant did not have the opportunity
to object to this fee when it was imposed.” Johnson v. State, 537 S.W.3d 929, 929 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2017) (per curiam). In such a situation, “an appellant may not be faulted for
1 While the trial court entered separate judgments for each count for which Appellant was found
guilty, each of these judgments were entered in the same trial court cause number and the bill of costs
refers to this cause number and purports to address all costs associated with each count.
2 The State filed a letter, which essentially indicated that it would not be filing a response on the
merits of Appellant’s appeal.
2
failing to object when he or she was not given the opportunity to do so.” Id. As such, we
conclude that Appellant’s challenges are properly before us.
Cumulated Fines
By his first issue, Appellant contends that it was error for the bill of costs to
cumulate the $2,000 fines in each case after the trial court ordered that the sentences run
concurrently.
The Court of Criminal Appeals has clarified that, “where multiple fines are
assessed in a same-criminal-episode prosecution and they are ordered to be discharged
concurrently, they discharge in the same manner as concurrent terms of confinement—
the defendant pays the greatest amount of fine but receives credit for satisfying all of the
multiple concurrent fines.” Anastassov v. State, 664 S.W.3d 815, 822 (Tex. Crim. App.
2022).
Because the jury assessed identical $2,000 fines for each offense and the trial
court ordered that the sentences run concurrently, we sustain Appellant’s first issue and
modify the certified bill of costs to assess a total of $2,000 in fines against Appellant.
Time Payment Fee
By his second issue, Appellant identifies that the bill of costs assesses a $15 time
payment fee but contends that the assessment of this fee while an appeal is pending is
premature and, consequently, erroneous.
A time payment reimbursement fee of $15 is authorized if the convicted person
has not paid all fees and costs by the thirty-first day after entry of the judgment assessing
3
the fees and costs. TEX. CRIM. PROC. CODE ANN. art. 102.030. However, a time payment
fee, like the one imposed here, must be “struck for being prematurely assessed because
a defendant’s appeal suspends the duty to pay court costs and therefore suspends the
running of the clock for the purposes of the time payment fee.” Evans v. State, No. 06-
22-00174-CR, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 3183, at *3 (Tex. App.—Texarkana May 11, 2023,
no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (quoting Dulin v. State, 620 S.W.3d
129, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021)). When a time payment fee has been assessed while
an appeal remains pending, the fee is premature and should be deleted in its entirety,
without prejudice to it being assessed if it later becomes due. Id.
Because the bill of costs assessed a $15 time payment fee while the present
appeal was pending, we sustain Appellant’s second issue and modify the certified bill of
costs by deleting the $15 charge for “time payment fee.”
CONCLUSION
We sustain both of Appellant’s issues, modify the certified bill of costs to reflect
that Appellant is liable for $2,000 for fines and delete the $15 time payment fee, and affirm
the judgments of the trial court as modified.
Judy C. Parker
Justice
Do not publish.
4