Opinion
06-23-00077-CR
08-30-2023
MICHAEL PAUL GARRETT, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish
Submitted: August 29, 2023
On Appeal from the 6th District Court Red River County, Texas Trial Court No. CR02938
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Charles van Cleef Justice
Michael Paul Garrett was convicted of family violence assault by occlusion. After the trial court found the State's punishment enhancement allegation true, it sentenced Garrett to twenty years' imprisonment and ordered him to pay $290.00 in court costs and $155.00 in reimbursement fees. In his sole point of error on appeal, Garrett argues that he was assessed unauthorized court costs. Because we agree, we modify the trial court's judgment and bill of costs by deleting the unauthorized court costs. As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
In our companion cause number 06-23-00078-CR, Garrett appeals his conviction for robbery.
The State argues that Garrett failed to preserve this issue for our review, but the "[a]ppellant need not have objected at trial to raise a claim challenging the bases of assessed costs on appeal." Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
I. We Must Delete Unauthorized Court Costs
"[W]e review the assessment of court costs on appeal to determine if there is a basis for the cost." Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 390. The trial court imposed the following court costs:
| CONSOLIDATED COURT COSTS | 144.00 |
| JUROR REIMBURSEMENT FEE | 4.00 |
| RECORDS MANAGEMENT CRIMINAL | 22.50 |
| DISTRICT CLERK FEE CRIMINAL | 40.00 |
| SHERIFFS FEE CRIMINAL | 155.00 |
| SECURITY FEE CRIMINAL | 10.00 |
| JUDICIAL SUPPORT FEE | 6.00 |
| CLERK RECORD MANAGEMENT | 2.50 |
| INDIGENT DEFENSE FUND | 2.00 |
| TECHNOLOGY FEE/DISTRICT CLERK | 4.00 |
| ELECTRONIC FILING FEE CRIMINAL | 5.00 |
| CRIME STOPPER FEE | 55.00 |
| TOTAL COST OF CAUSE |
The bill of costs listed the total cost for the cause as $445.00 instead of $450.00.
Garrett agrees that the unhighlighted fees were proper and, therefore, raises no challenge to the juror reimbursement fee, record management criminal fee, district clerk criminal fee, judicial support fee, indigent defense fund fee, and criminal technology fee.
We conclude that these fees were properly imposed.
As for Garrett's challenged fees, we first note that, in 2019, the Texas Legislature passed the Cost Act, relating to the consolidation and allocation of state criminal court costs, which increased the amount of some court costs and reduced the amounts of other court costs. See Act of May 23, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., ch. 1352, § 1.05, sec. 134.101, 2019 Tex. Gen. Laws 3981, 3984-85 (codified at Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 134.101). The Cost Act took effect on January 1, 2020, and provided,
Except as otherwise provided by this Act, the changes in law made by this Act apply only to a cost, fee, or fine on conviction for an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect on the date the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose.Act of May 23, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., ch. 1352, § 5.01, 2019 Tex. Gen. Laws 3981, 4035. Because Garrett's offense was committed in June 2019, we apply the law in effect at that time and examine each item assessed in the bill of costs.
The first item in the bill of costs is a state consolidated court cost of $144.00. The Cost Act increased that fee from $133.00. Act of May 23, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., ch. 1352, § 1.03, 2019 Tex. Gen. Laws 3981, 3982 (codified at Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 133.102). Because the Cost Act did not apply to Garrett's offense, we modify the fee to be $133.00 instead of $144.00.
Next, Garrett challenges the sheriff's fee, which was labeled as reimbursement, by simply stating, "No Texas law appears to have provided for [it]." Garrett is incorrect. Both the current and 2019 versions of Article 102.011 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, titled "Reimbursement Fees for Services of Peace Officers," authorize sheriff reimbursement fees. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 102.011 (Supp.); see Act of May 23, 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., ch. 1263, §§ 20, 21, 2007 Tex. Gen. Laws 4228, 4231-32 (eff. Sept. 1, 2007). As a result, we overrule Garrett's complaint about this fee.
Garrett makes no argument that the record was insufficient to support the amount of sheriff's fees imposed.
As for the security fee criminal, we find that the law in effect at the time of Garrett's offense provided for a $5.00 fee instead of the $10.00 assessed. Act of May 22, 1993, 73d Leg., R.S., ch. 818, § 1, art 102.017(a), 1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 3258, 3258 (eff. Sept. 1, 1993). As a result, we must delete the extra $5.00 mistakenly imposed.
Next, we find that the $2.50 clerk record management fee was authorized by Act of May 28, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 804, § 2, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 2775, 2776 (eff. June 17, 2005). We also find that the $5.00 electronic filing fee was authorized by Act of May 16, 2013, 83d Leg., R.S., ch. 1290, § 2, sec. 51.851, 2013 Tex. Gen. Laws 3269, 3270 (eff. Sept. 1, 2013) (codified at Tex. Gov't Code § 51.851).
As for the crime stopper fee, we agree with Garrett's argument that this fee was improperly assessed. At the time of Garrett's offense, a crime stopper fee could be assessed as a term and condition of community supervision or to repay any reward paid by a Crime Stoppers organization. Act of May 26, 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., ch. 770, § 2.37, 2015 Tex. Gen. Laws 2321, 2378 (eff. Jan. 1, 2017). The record contains no evidence of a reward paid by a Crime Stoppers organization and shows that Garrett was not placed on community supervision. As a result, we delete this fee from the bill of costs and judgment.
This Court has the authority to modify incorrect judgments when it has the information necessary to do so. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Rhoten v. State, 299 S.W.3d 349, 356 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2009, no pet.). In accordance with our findings, we modify the trial court's bill of costs as follows:
| CONSOLIDATED COURT COSTS | 133.00 |
| JUROR REIMBURSEMENT FEE | 4.00 |
| RECORDS MANAGEMENT CRIMINAL | 22.50 |
| DISTRICT CLERK FEE CRIMINAL | 40.00 |
| SHERIFFS FEE CRIMINAL | 155.00 |
| SECURITY FEE CRIMINAL | 5.00 |
| JUDICIAL SUPPORT FEE | 6.00 |
| CLERK RECORD MANAGEMENT | 2.50 |
| INDIGENT DEFENSE FUND | 2.00 |
| TECHNOLOGY FEE/DISTRICT CLERK | 4.00 |
| ELECTRONIC FILING FEE CRIMINAL | 5.00 |
| CRIME STOPPER FEE | 0.00 |
| TOTAL COST OF CAUSE | 379.00 |
We also modify the trial court's judgment to reflect that the amount owed for courts costs is $379.00 instead of $445.00.
II. Conclusion
We modify the trial court's judgment and bill of costs to reflect that the correct amount of court costs is $379.00. As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgment.