Aaron Christopher Foster v. the State of Texas
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)
Date FiledMay 26, 2026
Docket07-25-00078-CR
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-25-00078-CR
AARON CHRISTOPHER FOSTER, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 108th District Court
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 084012-E-CR, Honorable Timothy G. Pirtle, Presiding
May 26, 2026
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before PARKER, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.
Appellant, Aaron Christopher Foster, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon,1 a second-degree felony, and was placed on deferred adjudication
community supervision. The State moved to revoke Appellant’s community supervision
and adjudicate guilt. Appellant pleaded true to one ground and not true to the others.
Following a contested hearing, the trial court adjudicated Appellant guilty and sentenced
1 See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.02(a)(2).
him to fifteen years of confinement. By a single issue, Appellant challenges the
assessment of a time payment fee in the bill of costs. The State concedes the error, and
we agree. We affirm as modified.
Article 102.030 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires a person convicted of
an offense to pay a $15 time payment fee if any part of a fine, court cost, restitution, or
reimbursement fee is paid on or after the thirty-first day after the judgment is entered.
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 102.030(a). The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that a
timely appeal stops the thirty-one-day clock. See Dulin v. State, 620 S.W.3d 129, 133
(Tex. Crim. App. 2021). Here, Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal, and the thirty-
one-day period had not elapsed when the clerk assessed the fee. We modify the bill of
costs to delete the time payment fee, without prejudice to its reassessment if, more than
thirty days after issuance of our mandate, Appellant has failed to pay any fine, court costs,
or restitution owed. Appellant’s sole issue is sustained.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment with the modified bill of costs.
Lawrence M. Doss
Justice
Do not publish.
2