From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vasquez v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Oct 11, 2021
No. 05-20-00432-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 11, 2021)

Opinion

05-20-00432-CR 05-20-00434-CR

10-11-2021

EDGAR FABIAN VASQUEZ, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366-80176-2018

Before Justices Osborne, Reichek, and Smith

MEMORANDUM OPINION

AMANDA L. REICHEK, JUSTICE

Edgar Fabian Vazquez was charged by two-count indictment with continuous sexual abuse of a child and indecency with a child by sexual contact. A jury convicted him on both counts and assessed prison sentences of thirty-seven years and two years, respectively. In a single issue on appeal, appellant challenges the constitutionality of a portion of a $25 time payment fee imposed against him as court costs pursuant to section 133.103(a) of the Texas Local Government Code.

Effective January 1, 2020, section 133.103 of the local government code was transferred to article 102.030 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and amended. See Act of May 23, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., ch. 1352, §§ 2.54, 4.40(33). The changes apply only to a cost, fee, or fine assessed for an offense committed on or after the effective date of the Act. Id. § 5.01. Because the offenses in these appeals were committed before January1, 2020, the former law applies. Id.

After the briefs in this case were filed, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued its opinion in Dulin v. State, concluding that a trial court's assessment of the $25 time-payment fee while an appeal is pending is premature because the pendency of the appeal suspends the obligation to pay court costs. 620 S.W.3d 129, 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). The court further concluded the fee should be struck in its entirety without prejudice to being assessed later if, more than thirty days after issuance of the appellate mandate, the defendant has failed to pay any fine, court costs, or restitution he owes. Id.

The judgment in Cause No. 05-20-00432-CR imposed court costs in the amount of $692.32, which the record shows included the time payment fee. The judgment in Cause No. 05-20-00434-CR did not impose any court costs or fees. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 102.073; see Hurlburt v. State, 506 S.W.3d 199, 203 (Tex. App.-Waco 2016, no pet.). The certified bill of costs also reflects the assessment of the fee.

This Court has the power to modify a judgment to speak the truth when we have the necessary information 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); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd) (en banc).

Because the time payment fee was prematurely assessed in Cause No. 05-20-00432-CR, we modify the judgment to reduce the total amount of court costs by $25 to strike the time payment fee and affirm the judgment as modified. We affirm the judgment in 05-20-00434-CR.

JUDGMENT

Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's judgment on Count I is MODIFIED as follows:

To reduce the total amount of court costs by $25 to strike the time payment fee.

As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

JUDGMENT

Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's judgment on Count II is AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Vasquez v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Oct 11, 2021
No. 05-20-00432-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 11, 2021)
Case details for

Vasquez v. State

Case Details

Full title:EDGAR FABIAN VASQUEZ, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: Oct 11, 2021

Citations

No. 05-20-00432-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 11, 2021)

Citing Cases

Shuler v. State

Therefore, the time payment fees should be struck in their entirety. Id. ; Contreras , 2021 WL 6071640, at…