COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-15-00385-CR
NO. 02-15-00386-CR
WILLIE LEE AMIE, JR. APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NOS. 1394034D, 1411402D
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Willie Lee Amie Jr. appeals from his convictions for robbery and
concurrent fifteen-year sentences. Because we conclude Amie did not preserve
for our review the issue he raises on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.
Without the benefit of a plea-bargain agreement, Amie pleaded guilty to a
jury to two separate robberies. The jury found Amie guilty of the robberies and
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
assessed his punishment at two concurrent fifteen-year sentences. The trial
court entered judgments in accordance with the jury’s verdict and assessed as a
court cost in each conviction $133 for “CCC-Felony.” As Amie recognizes, this
assessment was a consolidated fee, imposed as a court cost, required by statute
“on conviction of a felony.” Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code Ann. § 133.102(a)(1) (West
Supp. 2015). Amie argues on appeal that this mandatory, statutory cost is
facially unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of powers clause in the
Texas Constitution because the programs funded by this assessment do not
relate to a specific defendant’s actual court costs, making trial courts “tax
gatherers.” See Tex. Const. art. II, § 1.
Amie did not present this constitutional argument to the trial court. As
such, he has not preserved this complaint for our review.2 See Waddell v. State,
No. 02-14-00372-CR, 2015 WL 7820272, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
Dec. 3, 2015, pet. filed) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Davis,
2015 WL 5770516, at *4; Guerrero v. State, Nos. 01-13-00821-CR, 01-13-00822-
CR, 2015 WL 2266247, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 14, 2015, pet.
2
Amie argues that preservation is not required because the section
133.102 consolidated fees are equivalent to the imposition of court costs upon
the revocation of community supervision, which may be raised for the first time
on appeal. See Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385, 390–91 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014). This argument has been rejected. See Davis v. State, No. 02-15-00163-
CR, 2015 WL 5770516, at *3–4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 1, 2015, pet. filed)
(mem. op., not designated for publication); Johnson v. State, 475 S.W.3d 430,
434–35 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. filed).
2
filed) (mem. op., not designated for publication). We overrule his issue and
affirm the trial court’s judgments.3
/s/ Lee Gabriel
LEE GABRIEL
JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: February 25, 2016
3
Even if Amie had preserved any error for our review, the court of criminal
appeals has decided this issue against Amie’s position, which he recognizes in
his brief. See Peraza v. State, 467 S.W.3d 508, 517–18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015),
petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Dec. 11, 2015) (No. 15-7367); see also Penright v.
State, No. 01-12-00647-CR, 2015 WL 5770006, at *2–6 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] Sept. 29, 2015, no pet.).
3