
    Sugar Ray FRANKLIN, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
    No. 05-12-00530-CR.
    Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.
    June 4, 2013.
    Rehearing Overruled July 15, 2013.
    
      Kathleen A. Walsh, Dallas County Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, for Appellant.
    Sugar Ray Franklin, pro se.
    G. Brian Garrison, Dallas County Dist. Atty’s Office, Craig Watkins, Dallas, for Appellee.
    Before Justices O’NEILL, FRANCIS, and FILLMORE.
   OPINION

Opinion by

Justice FRANCIS.

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.  