Opinion
NO. 12-17-00142-CR
03-15-2018
RANDAL PAIGE GARCIA, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
APPEAL FROM THE 241ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SMITH COUNTY , TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Randal Paige Garcia appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child. In one issue, he argues that some of the court costs imposed on him in the trial court's judgment are unconstitutional. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictment with continuous sexual abuse of a child and pleaded "not guilty." The matter proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found Appellant "guilty" of the lesser included offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for twenty years. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly, and this appeal followed.
COURT COSTS
In his sole issue, Appellant argues that we should modify the trial court's judgment and withdrawal order to remove certain unconstitutional court costs. Applicable Law
The imposition of court costs upon a criminal defendant is a "nonpunitive recoupment of the costs of judicial resources expended in connection with the trial of the case." Johnson v. State , 423 S.W.3d 385, 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The consolidated fee statute requires a defendant to pay a court cost of $133 on conviction of a felony. TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 133.102(a)(1) (West Supp. 2017). The money received is divided among a variety of state government accounts according to percentages dictated by the statute. See id . § 133.102(e) (West Supp. 2017); Salinas v. State , 523 S.W.3d 103, 105 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). The court of criminal appeals has held the statute unconstitutional with respect to two of these accounts: an account for "abused children's counseling" and an account for "comprehensive rehabilitation." See Salinas , 523 S.W.3d at 105. As a result, the court held that any fee assessed pursuant to the statute must be reduced pro rata to eliminate the percentage of the fee associated with these accounts. Id. The court further held that its holding applies only to (1) a defendant who raised the appropriate claim in a petition for discretionary review before the date of the court's opinion, if the petition is still pending on that date and the claim would otherwise be properly before the court on discretionary review, or (2) a defendant whose trial ends after the mandate in Salinas issues. Id. at 113. Analysis
Here, the bill of costs indicates that the $133 consolidated fee was assessed. However, because (1) no petition for discretionary review is pending on Appellant's claim and (2) the proceedings in the trial court ended on May 4, 2017—prior to the court's mandate in Salinas —the court's holding in that case does not apply. See id .; see also Salinas v . State , No. PD-0170-16 (Tex. Crim. App. June 30, 2017) (mandate); Smith v. State , No. 12-17-00089-CR, 2018 WL 345740, at *4 (Tex. App.-Tyler Jan.10, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Appellant's sole issue is overruled.
DISPOSITION
Having overruled Appellant's sole issue, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
JAMES T. WORTHEN
Chief Justice Opinion delivered March 15, 2018.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
Appeal from the 241st District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241-0926-15)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.
James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.