Dekeidrian Keshun Rollins v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-23-00149-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DEKEIDRIAN KESHUN ROLLINS, § APPEAL FROM THE 349TH
APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § HOUSTON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Dekeidrian Keshun Rollins appeals the revocation of his community supervision. In his
sole issue, Appellant argues the bill of costs erroneously reflects he must repay his court
appointed attorney’s fees. We modify the bill of costs and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

BACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated robbery. Pursuant to a plea
agreement, Appellant pleaded “guilty” and was placed on deferred adjudication community
supervision for eight years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s
guilt. After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion and assessed Appellant’s punishment at
twenty years confinement. This appeal followed.
BILL OF COSTS
In his sole issue, Appellant argues that the bill of costs contains an inaccurate assessment
of costs. Specifically, he urges that the bill of costs incorrectly requires him to reimburse his
court-appointed attorney’s fees. He contends we should modify the bill of costs to delete those
fees. The State agrees, and so do we.
At the hearing, the trial court assessed costs “as calculated by the clerk.” The clerk later
submitted a “Revocation Bill of Costs” that included $367 in court costs, $675 in attorney’s fees,
and $50 in restitution. The original judgment stated that Appellant “has financial resources that
enable [Appellant] to offset in part or in whole the cost of the legal services provided to
[Appellant]” and further orders Appellant to pay the court appointed attorney’s fees in his case.
However, the trial court has since entered a nunc pro tunc judgment that deleted this special
finding and lists only $367 in court costs. The bill of costs has not been corrected to reflect the
nunc pro tunc judgment.
“A defendant who is determined by the court to be indigent is presumed to remain
indigent for the remainder of the proceedings in the case unless a material change in the
defendant’s financial circumstances occurs.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC ANN. art. 26.04(p) (West
Supp. 2023); see Fulmer v. State, 401 S.W.3d 305, 318–19 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2013, pet.
ref’d) (holding trial court erred in ordering indigent criminal defendant to pay court-appointed
attorney’s fees absent evidence of a material change in financial circumstances). Here, nothing
in the record shows a material change in Appellant’s financial circumstances since counsel was
appointed to represent him. Absent a showing of a material change in Appellant’s financial
circumstances, it was error for the district clerk to assess attorney’s fees against Appellant in the
bill of costs. See Benavidez v. State, 423 S.W.3d 520, 522 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2014, no
pet.).
Because the assessment of attorney’s fees against Appellant was erroneous, it must be
corrected. Accordingly, we reform the bill of costs to delete the assessment of attorney’s fees.
See Green v. State, No. 04–13–00018–CR, 2013 WL 6200328, at *2 (Tex. App.–San Antonio
Nov. 27, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (reforming both judgment and
bill of costs to delete assessment of attorney’s fees against indigent criminal defendant). We
sustain Appellant’s sole issue.

2
DISPOSITION
Based on the foregoing, we modify the trial court’s bill of costs by deleting the
assessment of attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s nunc pro tunc judgment.

JAMES T. WORTHEN
Chief Justice

Opinion delivered February 22, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

3
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

FEBRUARY 22, 2024

NO. 12-23-00149-CR

DEKEIDRIAN KESHUN ROLLINS,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 349th District Court
of Houston County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 21CR-075)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record and the briefs filed herein, and
the same being inspected, it is the opinion of the Court that the bill of costs of the trial court
below should be modified.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the bill of
costs of the court below be modified to delete the assessment of attorney’s fees; the trial court’s
nunc pro tunc judgment is affirmed; and that this decision be certified to the trial court below for
observance.

James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.