Eric Martin v. State

Nos. 14-14-00761-CR & 14-14-00762-CR · Texas Court of Appeals, Fourteenth District · December 8, 2015 · No. Nos. 14-14-00761-CR & 14-14-00762-CR

Summary

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed two aggravated-sexual-assault-of-a-child convictions and concurrent 15-year sentences, modifying the judgments to remove statements that the defendant waived his right to appeal. The court upheld court costs for DNA testing and processing a capias, concluding that both costs had statutory bases and that supporting trial evidence was not required. The court also rejected the facial constitutional challenge to the DNA-testing fee.

Court
Texas Court of Appeals, Fourteenth District
Writing for the Court
Marc W. Brown; Boyce; Busby; Brown
Jurisdiction
Texas
Decision date
December 8, 2015
Docket number
Nos. 14-14-00761-CR & 14-14-00762-CR
Procedural posture
Martin pleaded guilty without a sentencing recommendation to two charges of aggravated sexual assault of a child, received concurrent fifteen-year prison sentences, and appealed issues concerning court costs and errors in the judgments.
Standard of review
The court reviewed the legal basis for assessed court costs, determining whether a statutory basis existed rather than whether sufficient evidence was introduced at trial to prove the costs. The judgment modification issue was reviewed under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b).
Precedential value
unpublished
Parties
Eric Martin v. The State of Texas
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureappellate procedurestatutory interpretationconstitutional lawpreservation of error

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureappellate practice

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the $250 DNA-testing fee assessed under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 102.020 was an unconstitutional tax and should be removed from the judgments.
  2. Whether the $50 fee for serving or processing a capias was properly assessed without documentation showing that a capias was actually served.
  3. Whether the judgments should be modified to delete recitations that Martin waived his right to appeal and had no permission to appeal.

Holdings

  1. Martin failed to satisfy his burden to show that Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 102.020 is facially unconstitutional; the DNA-testing fee was properly included in the court costs.
  2. The $50 fee for serving or processing a capias was properly assessed because article 102.011(a)(2) requires the fee for an issued arrest warrant or capias, and execution is relevant only to determining which law-enforcement agency receives the fee.
  3. The judgments were incorrect in stating that Martin waived his right to appeal and that no permission to appeal had been granted; the court modified each judgment to delete that statement.

Key quotations

In reviewing the assessment of court costs, we must determine if there is a basis for the cost, not if sufficient evidence was offered at trial to prove the cost. (2)
Therefore, even if the warrant was not executed, article 102.011(a)(2) still requires appellant to pay the fee. (5)
The judgments are incorrect in their statements that appellant has waived the right to appeal. (6)

Factual background

Martin pleaded guilty without a sentencing recommendation to two aggravated-sexual-assault-of-a-child charges and received concurrent fifteen-year sentences. Each judgment ordered payment of all fines, court costs, and restitution; the assessed court costs were $635 in one case and $594 in the other. Both bills of costs included a $250 DNA-testing fee and a $50 fee for serving capias. The judgments also stated that Martin had waived his right to appeal and that no permission to appeal had been granted.

Procedural history

The 338th District Court of Harris County entered judgments assessing court costs, including DNA-testing and capias-related fees, and stating that Martin had waived his right to appeal. Martin did not challenge his convictions or sentences but challenged the costs and the appeal-right recitations. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals overruled the cost challenges, sustained the challenge to the judgment language, modified both judgments, and affirmed as modified.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…