Franklin, Sugar Ray v. State
Cases that cite this one
122 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Michael J. Galloway v. State (Tex. App. 2014)
- Gabriel Louis Mendoza v. State (Tex. App. 2014)
- Gabriel Louis Mendoza v. State (Tex. App. 2014)
- Hylas Deangelo Polk v. State (Tex. App. 2014)
- Hylas Deangelo Polk v. State (Tex. App. 2014)
- Hylas Deangelo Polk v. State (Tex. App. 2014)
- Joseph Aaron Perez v. State (Tex. App. 2014)
- Miguel Batule v. State (Tex. App. 2014)
- Lusio Morales Limas v. State (Tex. App. 2014)
- Jackson, Leroy Sherard v. State (Tex. App. 2014)
- Kenneth Wayne Raper v. State (Tex. App. 2013)
- Moise Martinez v. State (Tex. App. 2013)
- Price, Larry Darnell v. State (Tex. App. 2013)
- Moore, Derwin Dwight v. State (Tex. App. 2013)
- Marshall, Christopher Roy v. State (Tex. App. 2013)
- Dale Allen Becker v. State (Tex. App. 2013)
- Elton James Peterson v. State (Tex. App. 2013)
- Shockley, John David v. State (Tex. App. 2013)
- in Re: Sugar Ray Franklin (Tex. App. 2019)
- Ivory Lee Hughes v. State (Tex. App. 2014)
- Michael Dwayne Newman v. State (Tex. App. 2014)
- Luis Alfredo Juarez v. State (Tex. App. 2014)
- Luis Alfredo Juarez v. State (Tex. App. 2014)
- Donald Mays v. State (Tex. App. 2014)
- Michael J. Galloway v. State (Tex. App. 2014)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION
Opinion by
Sugar Ray Franklin appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. After finding appellant guilty and making an affirmative finding on use or exhibition of a deadly weapon, the trial court assessed punishment, enhanced by a prior conviction, at five years in prison. In a single issue, appellant claims the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s order that appellant pay $244 in court costs. We affirm.
In his sole issue, appellant claims we should reform the trial court’s judgment to delete the requirement that he pay court costs because the clerk’s record does not contain a bill of costs. Following submission of this case, we ordered the Dallas County District Clerk to prepare and file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a detailed itemization of the costs and fees assessed in this case along with an explanation of any abbreviations used to define the costs and fees. See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 103.001, .006 (West 2006). The Dallas County District Clerk has complied with our order by filing a signed and certified supplemental clerk’s record containing the itemization of the costs assessed in this case. Because the record now contains a bill of costs supporting the assessment of costs in the judgment, we conclude appellant’s sole issue lacks merit.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.