IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. PD-717-13

EMERSON HANDY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

OPINION

Appellant was convicted of burglary of a habitation and sentenced to 45 years in prison. On appeal, he argued, among other things, that the evidence was insufficient to support the $289 in court costs assessed against him in the judgment. The Court of Appeals agreed, relying on its opinion in Johnson v. State, 389 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. App. – Houston HANDY - 2

[14th Dist.] 2012). Handy v. State, 401 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. App. – Houston [14 th Dist.] 2013).

The State has filed a petition for discretionary review of this decision. We recently handed down our opinion in Johnson v. State, No. PD-0193-13, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 240 (Tex. Crim. App. February 26, 2014), in which we set forth a roadmap for resolving questions regarding court costs. See also Cardenas v. State, No. PD-0733-13, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 236 (Tex. Crim. App. February 26, 2014).

The Court of Appeals in the instant case did not have the benefit of our opinion in Johnson. Accordingly, we grant the State’s petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to the Court of Appeals in light of our opinion in Johnson. We also this day refuse Appellant’s petition for discretionary review in this case. No motion for rehearing will be entertained.

DATE DELIVERED: April 16, 2014 PUBLISH