In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-13-00158-CR
MICHAEL J. GALLOWAY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 4 of Dallas County
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court No. F-1054302-K
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In Dallas County, 1 Texas, Michael J. Galloway entered an open plea of guilty to
abandoning a child with intent to return. The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed
Galloway on community supervision for a period of four years. About two years later, the State
filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging that Galloway violated six terms of his deferred
adjudication community supervision. Galloway pled “not true” to the allegations. After a
hearing, the trial court granted the State’s motion, found Galloway guilty of violating four of his
supervision conditions, and sentenced him to eighteen months’ confinement.
Galloway has filed a single brief, in which he raises issues common to both of his
appeals. 2 On appeal, Galloway contends that the trial court erred (1) by allowing a Dallas
County community supervision officer to testify from the reports prepared by a nontestifying
Collin County community supervision officer, (2) by entering a judgment that he pled “true” to
the State’s revocation allegations, (3) by entering a judgment that he violated all of the
community supervision terms alleged in the State’s motion to adjudicate, and (4) because there is
insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s assessment of court costs against him.
We addressed Galloway’s first three points of error in our opinion of this date on
Galloway’s appeal in cause number 06-13-00157-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we modify
1
Originally appealed to the Fifth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme
Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013). We decide
this case pursuant to the precedent of the Fifth Court of Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
2
Galloway also appeals a separate conviction of abandoning a child with intent to return resulting in a sentence of
eighteen months’ confinement in our cause number 06-13-00157-CR.
2
the judgment to reflect a plea of “not true,” and a finding that Galloway violated conditions H, K,
R, and U as alleged in the State’s motion to adjudicate.
In his final point of error, Galloway argues that there is insufficient evidence to support
the trial court’s assessment of $394.00 in court costs against him. We agree.
“A clerk of a court is required to keep a fee record, and a statement of an item therein is
prima facie evidence of the correctness of the statement.” Owen v. State, 352 S.W.3d 542, 547
(Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011, no pet.) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 103.009(a), (c)
(West 2006)). “A cost is not payable by the person charged with the cost until a written bill is
produced or is ready to be produced, containing the items of cost, signed by the officer who
charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the cost.” TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. ANN. art. 103.001 (West 2006). “In other words, a certified bill of costs imposes an
obligation upon a criminal defendant to pay court costs, irrespective of whether . . . that bill is
incorporated by reference into the written judgment.” Owen, 352 S.W.3d at 547.
The clerk’s record in this case did not originally include a bill of costs. Following the
precedent of the Dallas Court of Appeals, we ordered the Dallas County District Clerk to prepare
and file an itemized bill of costs. See Franklin v. State, 402 S.W.3d 894, 895 (Tex. App.—
Dallas 2013, no pet.). In response, we received a “Bill of Costs” certification signed by the
Dallas County District Clerk averring that the attached unsigned, unsworn computer printout
constitutes “costs that have accrued to date.” The Dallas Court of Appeals has held that this type
of filing constitutes a bill of costs. Crain v. State, No. 05–12–01219–CR, 2014 WL 357398,
3
at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 31, 2014, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)
(citing Coronel v. State, 416 S.W.3d 550, 555 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, pet. ref’d)).
Here, the bill of costs contained in the supplemental record certifies court costs of
$290.02. Therefore, we sustain this point of error because the evidence is insufficient to support
the assessment of $394.00 in court costs. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure give this
Court authority to modify judgments and correct typographical errors to make the record speak
the truth. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2; French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992);
Gray v. State, 628 S.W.2d 228, 233 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1982, pet. ref’d). We hereby
modify the trial court’s judgment in this case to reflect court costs of $290.02.
We affirm the judgment, as modified.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: March 31, 2014
Date Decided: May 22, 2014
Do Not Publish
4
Michael J. Galloway v. State
Combined Opinion