Dustin Tyler Chrzas v. State

NO. 12-17-00315-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS DUSTIN TYLER CHRZAS, § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH APPELLANT V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION Dustin Tyler Chrzas appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery. In one issue, he argues that the trial court erred in imposing court costs that have been held unconstitutional. We affirm. BACKGROUND On May 19, 2016, Appellant was charged by indictment with the felony offense of aggravated robbery. On September 22, Appellant pleaded “guilty,” the trial court deferred a finding of guilt, and the court placed Appellant on community supervision for ten years, subject to certain terms and conditions. On September 14, 2017, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt alleging that Appellant violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. On October 13, Appellant appeared before the trial court and pleaded “true” to the allegations in the State’s motion. The court found the allegations to be “true,” revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and sentenced him to imprisonment for twenty years. This appeal followed. COURT COSTS In one issue, Appellant argues that the “trial court erred in imposing court costs for fees that have been held to be unconstitutional.” Applicable Law 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 $133.00 on conviction of a felony. TEX. LOC. GOV’T. CODE ANN. § 133.102(a)(1) (West Supp. 2017). 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. 2017). However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held the statute to be unconstitutional with respect to two of these accounts—an account for “abused children’s counseling” and an account for “comprehensive rehabilitation.” Salinas v. State, 523 S.W.3d 103, 107–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). 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. See id. at 105. Analysis Here, citing Salinas, Appellant seeks to have the $133 in court courts reduced pro rata to eliminate the portions of the costs attributable to abused children’s counseling and comprehensive rehabilitation. However, effective June 15, 2017, the Legislature amended Section 133.102(e) to remove the two accounts deemed unconstitutional from the statute, but the consolidated court cost fee remains at $133. See Act of May 18, 2017, 85th Leg. R.S., ch. 966, 2017 Tex. Sess. Law. Serv. 3917, 3917–18 (West) (codified at TEX. LOC. GOV’T. CODE § 133.102(a), (e)). In this case, the judgment adjudicating guilt is dated October 13, 2017. Accordingly, given the amendment to Section 133.102, no part of the consolidated court costs assessed against Appellant were attributable to either abused children’s counseling or comprehensive rehabilitation. Therefore, we overrule Appellant’s sole issue. DISPOSITION Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 2 BRIAN HOYLE Justice Opinion delivered April 18, 2018. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) 3 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT APRIL 18, 2018 NO. 12-17-00315-CR DUSTIN TYLER CHRZAS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0675-16) 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. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.