Tara Kellie Brown v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-26-00088-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

TARA KELLIE BROWN, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 13TH DISTRICT COURT
OF NAVARRO COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Silva and Cron
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

Appellant Tara Kellie Brown appeals the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt

and associated bill of costs. By two issues, Brown contends: (1) the bill of costs varies

from the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence and written judgment concerning

the imposition of a fine; and (2) a discrepancy exists between the trial court’s judgment
and the bill of costs regarding court costs and clerk fees. We affirm as modified.

I. BACKGROUND 1

On June 18, 2025, Brown was indicted for injury causing bodily injury to an elderly

individual, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.04(a)(3), (c)(2), (f). On July

17, 2025, Brown pleaded guilty to the offense as charged. Pursuant to the terms of a plea

agreement, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed Brown on deferred

adjudication community supervision for three years. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art.

42A.101(a).

On September 4, 2025, the State filed a motion to adjudicate her guilt alleging that

she violated the terms and conditions of her community supervision. On December 18,

2025, the trial court held a hearing on the State’s motion. During the hearing, the trial

court adjudicated Brown guilty and sentenced her to four years’ imprisonment in the

Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division. Upon pronouncement of her

sentence, the trial court made no reference or mention of the imposition of a fine.

The trial court subsequently entered its written judgment indicating that Brown’s

fines were “N/A” and that her court costs were “$290.” No boxes were checked

underneath the imposed fines section of the judgment. The certified bill of costs filed by

the district clerk on February 17, 2026, however, provided that Brown’s court costs totaled

“$495,” and her clerk fees were “$110.” The bill of costs also included a fine of “$100.”

This appeal ensued.

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Tenth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket-

equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE §§ 22.220(a) (delineating
the jurisdiction of appellate courts), 73.001 (granting the supreme court the authority to transfer cases from
one court of appeals to another at any time that there is “good cause” for the transfer). We are bound by
the precedent of the transferring court to the extent that it differs from our own. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.

2
II. IMPOSITION OF A FINE

Brown first argues that “the $100 fine appearing in the bill of costs is unauthorized

and must be deleted.” The State concedes that the fine was not orally pronounced in

Brown’s presence and should be removed from the bill of costs. We agree.

A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

An appellate court has the power to modify a bill of costs. See Jones v. State, 691

S.W.3d 671, 679 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2024, pet. ref’d) (rejecting the State’s

argument that the Court was without jurisdiction to modify the appellant’s bill of costs and

sustaining the appellant’s appellate issue concerning said bill of costs). Relevant here,

“[a] fine is punitive in nature and is part of a defendant’s sentence.” Anastassov v. State,

664 S.W.3d 815, 820 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022) (citing Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759,

767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (observing that fines are imposed as a punishment pursuant

to Chapter 12 of the Texas Penal Code, which is entitled “Punishments”)). The Texas

Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a “sentence shall be pronounced in the

defendant’s presence,” except as provided by Article 42.14, which is not applicable here.

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.03, § 1(a); see also id. art. 42.14(b) (providing that

judgment and sentence may be rendered in the absence of the defendant in a felony case

under certain circumstances). Further, “when there is a conflict between the oral

pronouncement and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” Burt v. State,

445 S.W.3d 752, 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (citing Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 500

(Tex. Crim. App. 2004); and then citing Thompson v. State, 108 S.W.3d 287, 290 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2003)).

3
B. Analysis

Because the trial court did not orally pronounce a fine in Brown’s presence when

it imposed her sentence, it was improper for a $100 fine to be included in the bill of costs.

See Anastassov, 664 S.W.3d at 820; TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.03, § 1(a); see also

Ruyle v. State, No. 02-24-00199-CR, 2025 WL 938131, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar.

27, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“[F]ines must be orally

pronounced in the defendant’s presence.”) (citing Armstrong, 340 S.W.3d at 767)).

Consequently, we modify the trial court’s bill of costs to accurately reflect a fine of zero.

See Jones, 691 S.W.3d at 679. Brown’s first issue is sustained.

III. COURT COSTS AND CLERK FEES

Brown next argues that the trial court’s judgment and bill of costs must be reformed

“to accurately reflect the lawful court costs and clerk fees assessed in the case.” Brown

contends that “[b]ecause the judgment reflects only $290 in court costs while the bill of

costs reflects $495 in court costs and $110 in clerk fees, the written judgment does not

accurately reflect the costs assessed in the case.” The State responds by asserting that

the trial court’s judgment should be reformed to accurately reflect the total amount of court

costs assessed in the bill of costs.

A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

“An appellate court has the authority to reform a judgment as may be necessary

to make the record speak the truth.” Martinez v. State, 527 S.W.3d 310, 329 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2017, pet. ref’d) (citing French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609

(Tex. Crim. App. 1992)); see TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b). “The Texas Court of Criminal

Appeals has explicitly held that court costs are not part of the sentence and do not need

4
to be orally pronounced or incorporated by reference into the judgment.” Allen v. State,

426 S.W.3d 253, 257 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, no pet.) (citing Armstrong, 340

S.W.3d at 766–67)). Rather, court costs are “a nonpunitive recoupment of the costs of

judicial resources expended in connection with the trial of the case.” Weir v. State, 278

S.W.3d 364, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). (citation modified). “The imposition of court

costs is mandatory under Article 42.16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” Welch v.

State, 683 S.W.3d 525, 527 (Tex. App.—Waco 2023, no pet.) (first citing TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. art. 42.16; and then citing Martinez v. State, 507 S.W.3d 914, 916 (Tex. App.—

Waco 2016, no pet.)). “However, the court may only impose those costs that are statutorily

authorized.” Id. (citing Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385, 389 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)).

“There must also be a basis in the record for the assessment of a cost.” Id. (first citing

Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 390; and then citing Wolfenbarger v. State, 581 S.W.3d 455, 459

(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2019, no pet.)). Such costs are payable upon the production and

issuance of a certified bill of costs to the person charged with the cost. See TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. art. 103.001(b)(1)–(3). “In other words, a certified bill of costs imposes an

obligation upon a criminal defendant to pay court costs, irrespective of whether or not that

bill is incorporated by reference into the written judgment.” Allen, 426 S.W.3d at 256–57

(citation modified). “[W]e review the assessment of court costs on appeal to determine if

there is a basis for the cost, not to determine if there was sufficient evidence offered at

trial to prove each cost.” Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 390. “Absent a challenge to a specific

cost or basis for the assessment of that cost, a bill of costs is sufficient.” Id. at 396.

B. Analysis

Here, the trial court’s judgment shows court costs of $290, but the record does not

5
reflect where the trial court derived this figure. In addition, the district clerk’s certified bill

of costs included court costs in the amount of $495, which differed from the amount of

court costs imposed in the trial court’s judgment. Because Brown is not specifically

challenging the basis for the assessment of any court costs, we conclude that the bill of

costs is sufficient to support the $495 amount of court costs. See id. Accordingly, we

modify the trial court’s judgment in accordance with the bill of costs to reflect court costs

in the amount of $495. 2 See Allen, 426 S.W.3d at 259 (modifying the judgment to reflect

the amount assessed in the bill of costs when the two amounts differed); Martinez, 527

S.W.3d at 329; TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b). Brown’s second issue is sustained.

IV. CONCLUSION

Having modified the trial court’s judgment and bill of costs, we affirm as modified.

CLARISSA SILVA
Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).

Delivered and filed on the
11th day of June, 2026.

2 To the extent that Brown’s complaints concern a discrepancy between the trial court’s judgment

and the clerk fees assessed in the bill of costs, the judgment before us does not contain the clerk fees nor
does it contain a portion or section for the placement of such fees.

6