ELIZABETH NOEL YOUNG, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
Elizabeth Noel Young appeals her conviction for exploitation of an elderly individual. Appellant argues that the judgment imposes unconstitutional court costs. We affirm.
Appellant was charged by indictment with exploitation of an elderly individual. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement with the State, Appellant pleaded “guilty” to the offense, and the trial court assessed her punishment at imprisonment for ten years, suspended for a period of eight years.
Subsequently, the State filed an application to revoke Appellant's community supervision. Appellant pleaded “true” to the allegations in the application. After giving both parties an opportunity to present evidence and arguments, the trial court granted the application to revoke and assessed Appellant's punishment at imprisonment for ten years. This appeal followed.
Appellant argues that this Court should modify the trial court's judgment and withdrawal order to remove unconstitutional court costs.
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. 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.
Here, the final judgment shows a court cost assessment of $289. The bill of costs shows that the $133 consolidated fee was assessed. However, because no petition for discretionary review is pending on Appellant's claim, and the proceedings in the trial court ended on November 28, 2016—well before the court of criminal appeals's decision in Salinas—the court's holding in that case does not apply. See id. Accordingly, we overrule Appellant's issue.
Having overruled Appellant's sole issue, we affirm the trial court's 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.
Brian Hoyle, Justice.