AARON YOUNG IV APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS APPELLEE (2017)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Aaron Young, IV appeals his conviction for tampering with a governmental record. In one issue, he argues that the trial court erred in imposing court costs for fees that have been held to be unconstitutional. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was indicted for the state jail felony offense of tampering with a governmental record which was enhanced to a second degree felony punishment range by two previous, sequential felony convictions. Appellant entered a plea of “guilty” to the indictment, and, on March 16, 2017, the trial court sentenced him to fifteen years of imprisonment. This appeal followed.

COURT COSTS

In one issue, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing a $133 consolidated court costs fee because portions of the fee have been held to be unconstitutional.

Applicable Law

The imposition of court costs upon a criminal defendant is a “non-punitive 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. 2016). 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. 2016); Salinas v. State, No. PD-0170-16, 2017 WL 915525, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 8, 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, 2017 WL 915525, at *1. 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 that 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 *6.

Analysis

Here, the judgment shows a court cost assessment of $229, and the bill of costs shows 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 March 16, 2017—well before the court of criminal appeals' June 30, 2017 mandate in Salinas—the court's holding in that case does not apply.¹ See id.; see also Salinas v. State, No. PD-0170-16 (Tex. Crim. App. June 30, 2017) (mandate). Accordingly, we overrule Appellant's issue.

DISPOSITION

Having overruled Appellant's sole issue, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

JUDGMENT

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.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State filed a letter brief in which it conceded error in the assessment of the $133 fee and urged this Court to modify the trial court's judgment accordingly. The State based its reasoning on the date of the opinion in Salinas, which was March 8, 2017; however, the court specifically held that the holding applied only to cases that ended in the trial court after the issuance of the mandate in Salinas, which did not occur until June 30, 2017. Salinas, 2017 WL 915525, at *6; Salinas v. State, No. PD-0170-16 (Tex. Crim. App. June 30, 2017) (mandate).

Greg Neeley, Justice.