HERVEY, J., delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court.
Cardenas was convicted of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. The court ordered him to pay court costs totaling $294. Cardenas filed a motion to correct costs, alleging that the court of appeals mischaracterized the record and fabricated facts to justify the imposition of court costs.
Issue: Did the court of appeals err when it held that the record supported the assessment of $294 in court costs and construing to allow a convicted defendant to file a motion to correct costs?
The court held that Johnson v. State controlled with respect to the basis of assessed costs and that the bill of costs provided sufficient basis to sustain the court costs. In Johnson, the court held that record did not require a bill of costs to support assessed court costs and that an appellate court could order a trial-court clerk to prepare a bill of costs to be included as a supplemental clerk’s record. In this case, the bill of costs in the supplemental record supported the court costs. In response to the claim that the court of appeals fabricated facts, the court held that Cardenas’s right to due process was satisfied with respect to notice and an opportunity to be heard. While Cardenas also raised claims requiring construal of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 103.008, the court declined to reach the merits of those grounds because Cardenas never filed a motion under that Article, nor did the court of appeals construe that provision. Thus, the court affirmed the court of appeals.