Affirmed and Opinion Filed June 21, 2013

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-00579-CR DEMARCUS TYSON AKA ALFONZO DAVIS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F07-49621-R OPINION Before Justices O’Neill, Francis, and Fillmore Opinion by Justice Francis Demarcus Tyson a/k/a Alfonso Davis appeals his conviction for assault of a security officer. Appellant pleaded guilty to the offense in accordance with a plea agreement with the State and was placed on deferred adjudication probation for five years and ordered to pay a $1000 fine and $711 in court costs. The State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt when appellant failed to report to his supervision officer and failed to pay court costs, drug testing fees, and his fine. After appellant entered an open plea of true to the motion to adjudicate, the trial court found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at four years in prison. The trial court also ordered appellant pay $836 in court costs. In two issues, appellant claims the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s order he pay court costs and court appointed attorney fees.

We affirm.

In his first issue, appellant claims there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s judgment ordering appellant to pay court costs because the clerk’s record does not contain a cost bill. In response, the State contends the evidence is sufficient because the assessment of costs is derived by statutory authority and the amounts appellant was ordered to pay as costs may be verified by analyzing each relevant statute.

We recognize we have the authority to review the statutes in order to verify the costs attributable to felony offense convictions and, by doing so, may consider whether the trial court appropriately assessed court costs in this case. See Cardenas v. State, No. 01-11-01123-CR; 2013 WL 1164365, at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet. h.) (op. on reh’g).

Likewise, we have the authority to request from the Dallas County District Clerk a supplemental record with the cost bill supporting the trial court’s assessment of costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c)(1), (3); see Cardenas, 2013 WL 1164365, at *6.

After submission, we ordered the district clerk to supplement the record with the cost bill.

The Dallas County District Clerk complied with our order by filing a signed and certified supplemental clerk’s record containing the itemized costs assessed in this case. See Franklin v. State, 05-12-00530-CR, 2013 WL 2446283, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 4, 2013, no pet. h.).

The cost bill details $336 in court costs, $500 in court appointed attorney’s fees, and a $1000 fine. In light of this, we conclude appellant’s first issue is moot.

In his second issue, appellant claims the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s order that appellant pay $500 in appointed attorney’s fees because appellant was indigent.

The supplemental clerk’s record shows the court costs and appointed attorney’s fees were assessed at the time appellant was placed on deferred adjudication. A defendant placed on deferred adjudication community supervision may raise issues relating to the original plea

proceeding, such as sufficiency challenges, only in appeals taken when deferred adjudication community supervision is first imposed. Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661‒62 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1999). Because the record shows the court appointed attorney fees were assessed when appellant was originally placed on deferred adjudication and nothing in the record shows additional attorney’s fees were assessed when he was adjudicated guilty in April 2012, appellant’s complaint is not timely. See id. We overrule appellant’s second issue.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 /Molly Francis/ 120579F.U05 MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE

S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT DEMARCUS TYSON AKA ALFONSO On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District DAVIS, Appellant Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F07-49621-R. No. 05-12-00579-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis, Justices O’Neill and Fillmore participating.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 21st day of June, 2013.

/Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE