PD-0100 & PD-0101-15

I N THE C OURT OF C RIMINAL A PPEALS O F THE S TATE OF T EXAS

O SMIN P ERAZA , Appellant

v

. T HE S TATE OF T EXAS Appellee

Arising from the First Court of Appeals in Nos. 01-12-00690-CR & 01-12-00691-CR. Cause Numbers 1305439 & 1305438 from the 184th District Court of Harris County, Texas

A PPELLANT ’ S M OTION FOR R EHEARING

T O THE H ONORABLE J UDGES OF THE C OURT OF C RIMINAL A PPEALS :
COMES NOW, the Appellant, by and through his undersigned attorney, and

respectfully moves the Court to reconsider its July 1, 2015, decision for the following

reasons:
1. The discussion by the Court of how a facial challenge to a statute is considered on appeal has subtly altered current precedent from the United States Supreme Court and this Court.

2. The decision of the Court crafting a broad new rule to define court costs has created new constitutional issues violating double jeopardy and equal protection.

-1- 0101-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 7/23/2015 3:38:33 PM Accepted 7/23/2015 3:55:38 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKDis cuss io n

Issu e O ne :

The sta nd ard for a fac ial ch allenge has be en altere d.

He re, the Court' s res tate men t of a lega l pri nc ip le al mos t imp erc ep t i b l y de via tes

fro m the pri nc ip le a s o rigin al ly f orm ula ted in pre ce de nti al ca se la w. Thi s un ca lcul ate d

di ver genc e ma y wel l ha ve af fec ted the Court' s ultima te co nc lusi on

. Acc ord in gly. M r.

Per az a res pe ctful ly imp ortun es thi s ho no rab le Court to ca ref ully co ns id er the pro sp ec t

tha t a guid in g lega l pr in cip le h as be en inc orre ctly sta ted

.

The bu rde n o f a part y allegin g th at a s tat ut e is facially u nc on st itu tio na l

Th e lega l pri nc ip le in questi on co nc ern s the lega l burd en bo rne by a pa rty al legi ng

a sta tute to be fa cia lly unc on stituti on al . Th is Co urt be gins with a c orre ct sta teme nt of

the la w. “In ord er to succ es sf ully moun t a fa cia l ch al len ge to Artic le 102

. 0 2 0

, Per az a

must es tab lis h tha t no se t of circ umsta nc es ex ists und er wh ich tha t s t a t ute wo uld be

va lid .” Peraz

a v. Sta te , No. PD- 010 0- 15 & No. PD- 010 1- 15,

__ _ S.W .3 d

__ _ (Tex

. Crim.

App

. July 1, 201 5) at 9. T h e l a n gu a ge i s id en tica l to tha t se t out in the Un ited Sta tes

Supre me Court ca se cite d by the Court. United Sta tes v. Sa lerno

, 481 U. S. 739

, 745 (198 7)

(pa rty ma kin g a fa cia l ch al len ge to a sta tute “must es tab lis h tha t no se t of circ umsta nc es

ex ists und er wh ich the Act wo u l d be va lid ”). Th e la ngua ge is al so the sa me as tha t

de sc rib in g a ch al len ger’s burd en as de cla red in the two CCA ca se s cite d as auth ori ty. See

-2-Sa ntikos v. Sta te , 836 S.W .2 d 631

, 633 (Tex

. Crim. App

. 1 9 9 2 ) ( “t h e ch al len ger must

es tab lis h that no set of circums tan ce s ex ists und er wh ich the sta tute wil l be va lid .”); see

al so Sta te v. Rosseau

, 396 S.W .3 d 550

, 557 (Tex

. Crim. App

. 201 3) (rep ea tin g the la ngua ge

fro m the Sa ntikos

ca se verb ati m).

But on e p age la ter, the Court ch ara cter ize s M r. P era za ’s burd en di ffe ren tly:

W e must de termi ne wh eth er the re are po ten tia l co ns titutio na l ap pl ica tio ns of Artic le 102 .0 20 so tha t we ca n co ns id er wh eth er Per az a ha s met hi s burd en to sh ow tha t the re are no po ss ib le co ns titutio na l ap pl ica tio ns of the

sta tute.

Peraz a at 1 0. No ca se s a re ci ted for this pre cis e p hra se ol ogy.

At firs t glan ce , the two fo rmula tio n s o f t h e burd en se em to be the sa me. He re

aga in are the two d iff

ere nt fo rmula tio ns :

Ori gina l Form ulat ion : Th e ch al len ger must es tab lis h tha t “no se t of

circ umsta nc es exi sts und er wh ich the sta tute wo uld be va lid .”

Alte red Form ulat ion : Th e ch al len ger must es tab li sh tha t “ther e are no

po ss ib le c on stituti on al ap pl ica tio ns of th e sta tute.”

In the ca se of mos t sta tutes, the ch al len ger’s burd en is the s a m e und er eith er

fo rmula tio n. But in the ca se of so me s t a t u t e s , the ch al len ger’s burd en is imp rop erly

es ca la ted und er the al tere d fo rmula tio n. Th e sta tutes in wh ich the burd en is erro ne ous ly

he ighte ne d are tho se sta tutes t ha t pro duc e bo th co ns titutio na l an d unc on stituti on al

res ults at the sa me time

. Sta tutes ca lli ng fo r the as se ss men t of fee s an d co sts are pri me

-3-ex am pl es

.

The forme r family p rote ct ion fee - p artly c on st itu tio na l and part ly no t

Ten ye ars ago , the Attorn ey Gen era l co ns id ere d th e co ns titutio na lity of Sec tio n

51. 961 of the G o v ern men t Cod e. See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA -0387 (200 5). Th is

sta tute auth ori zed co unty co mmis sio ne rs co urts to ad op t a “fa mily pro tecti on fee ” in an

am oun t no t to ex ce ed $30. See Act o f Jun e 2, 200 3, 78th Leg. , ch . 19 8, 200 3 Te x. Gen

.

La ws 711 (am en de d 200 5 an d 200 7) (cu rren t ver sio n at T E X

. G O V ' T C O D E A N N

. §

51. 961 W es t 201 3). Th e fee wa s to be co lle cted upo n the fil in g of a sui t f o r the

di ss ol ution of ma rria ge. Id

. Rev en ue fro m the fee wa s to be di rec ted to two di ffe ren t

de stin ati on s. Id

. Subs ec tio n (d) co mma nd ed tha t on e- ha lf of the fee be de po site d in the

co unty ’s fa mily pro tecti on ac co unt. Id

. Subs ec tio n (g) ma nd ate d tha t the oth er ha lf of

the fee go to th e Sta te's ch ild ab use a nd ne glec t pre ven tio n trus t fund ac co unt. Id

.

Th e AG op in ed tha t Subs e c t io n (g)’s al lo ca tio n of rev en ue to the Sta te's ch ild

ab use an d ne glec t pre ven tio n trust fun d ac co unt wa s unc on stituti on al

. Tex. Att'y Gen. Op.

N o. G A -0 387 (200 5) at 5. Acc ord in g to the AG, di rec tin g rev en ue to the trust f u n d

vio la ted the op en co urts pro vis io n of the Tex as Con stituti on

. Id

. But the AG reite rate d

a pre vio us op in io n tha t Subs ec tio n (d)’ s al lo ca tio n of rev en ue to the co unty 's fa mily

pro tecti on ac co unt wa s co ns titutio na l. Id

. at 6- 7

. T he sa lie nt mes sa ge he re is no t the

rea so n i n g fo r the AG’s op in io n tha t on e fee de stin ati on wa s co ns titutio na l wh ile the

oth er fee de stin ati on wa s no t. Ra the r, the rea so n fo r citi ng thi s AG op in io n is to sh ow

-4-tha t certa in sta tutes c an ha ve b oth co ns titutio na l a nd unco ns titutio na l a sp ec ts.

A s tat ut e th at i s u nc on st itu tio na l in p art is an u nc on st itu tio na l stat ut e

.

A sta tute ca n h av e both co ns titutio na l and unc on stituti on al as pe cts - every time

the sta tute is ap pl ied . W he n is a fe e sta tute a pp lie d? Eve ry tim e th e fe e is as se ss ed

.

W he n a sta tute ha s unc on stituti on al as pe cts , the sta tute itse lf is unc on stituti on al

.

Th e sta tute ca nn ot c o n t i n u e to ex ist unc ha nged

. Th e unc on stituti on al po rtio n of the

sta tute must be ex cis ed fro m the res t of the sta tut e

. In so me circ umsta nc es , the

rema in in g po rtio n of the sta tute ca n co nti nue in eff ec t. In oth er situa tio ns , the ex cis io n

of the in va lid po rtio n of the sta tute ma kes thi s imp os sib le. See T E X

. G O V ' T C O D E A N N

. § 311 .0 32( C ) (W es t 200 5) (“[I]f an y pro vis io n of the sta tute or it s ap pl ica tio n to an y

pe rso n is he ld in va lid

, the in va lid ity do es no t af fec t oth er prov

isi on s or ap pl ica tio ns of

the sta tute tha t ca n b e give n effe ct witho ut the inv al id pro vis io n o r ap pl ica tio n, an d to

thi s en d th e p rov

isi on s o f the sta tute a re s eve rab le. ”).

In the ca se of Sec tio n 51. 961

, the sta tute co uld no t co nti nue to sta nd
- eve n with

the of fen di ng pro vis io n se ver ed out. In ord er to kee p the co ns titutio na l po rtio n of the

sta tute in eff

ec t, the Legis la ture ha d to am en d the sta tute. Th e Legis la ture di d so in the

ver y ne xt legi sla tive se ss io n. See Act of M ay 22, 200 7, 80th Leg. R.S
., ch

. 637

, 200 7 Tex

.

Gen

. La ws 121 2, 121 5. T h e a m e nd men t red uced the fee fro m $30 to $15. Th e

am en dm en t di rec ted the $15 fee to the co unty ’s fa mily pro tecti on ac co unt wh ich the AG

ha d fo und to be co n s t i t u t i o na l. Ad di tio na lly

, the am en dm en t rep ea led Subs ec tio n (g)

-5-wh ich ha d di rec ted pa rt of the pri or $30 fee to the Sta te ’ s c h i l d a bus e an d ne glec t

pre ven tio n trus t fund

.

As no ted in the fo reg o i n g p ara grap h, wh en a po rtio n of a sta tute is

unc on stituti on al

, the sta tute itse lf is unc on stituti on al

. Un de r the ori gina l fo rmula tio n of

the burd en the ch al len ger to the fa cia l co ns titutio na lity be ars , a pa rtia lly unc on stituti on al

sta tute wil l al wa ys be foun d to be unco ns titutio na l. But und er the al tere d fo rmula tio n

of the burd en , a pa rtia lly unc on stituti on al sta tute wil l al wa ys be fo und to be

co ns titutio na l. T hi s p oi nt c an be st b e d emo ns trate d v ia a h yp oth etic al exa mpl e.

Ban an as an d ap ples : a hyp ot he tic al ex am ple t o aid un de rst an di ng

Con sid e r a hy po the tica l fee sta tute tha t ha s bo th co ns titutio na l an d

unc on stituti on al as pe cts eve ry time the sta tute is ap pl ied

. Th is hy po the tica l sta tute is just

lik e fo rmer Sec tio n 51. 961 of the Gov ern men t Cod e di sc uss ed ab ov e. M r. Per az a uses

the hy po the tica l sta tute in ste ad o f S e c t i o n 51. 961 in ord er to ma ke hi s po in t ea sie r to

und ers tan d.

Imagin e a con stituti on al pro vis io n pro hi bi tin g the ex pe nd iture of crim in al co urt

co st rev en ue on ba na na s. Th ere are no sim ila r co ns titutio na l pro vis io ns pro hi bi tin g the

use of crim in al co urt co st rev en u e on oth er typ es of fruit. Imagin e al so tha t the

legi sla ture pa ss es a sta tute requiri ng the imp os itio n of a $10 co urt co st upo n co nv icti on

of a crim e. Rev en ue fro m the co urt co st is sta tutori ly di rec ted to a f u n d used to

purc ha se ap pl es an d b a n a n a s. Th e ex pe nd iture of the co urt co st rev en ue on ap pl es is

-6-co ns titutio na l beca use no co ns titutio na l pro vis io n pro hi bi ts such an ex pe nd iture. But

the purc ha se of ba na na s with the co urt co st rev en ue is unc on stituti on al be ca use of the

co ns titutio na l pro vis io n pro hibi t in g ex pe ndi t

u r es fo r ba na na s. Th us, the sta tute ha s bo th

co ns titutio na l an d unc on stituti on al as pe cts - eve ry time the fee is as se ss ed

. Ho w wo uld

a f ac ia l ch al len ge to th e statute' s co ns titutio na lity fa re? The an swe r de pe nd s o n wh ich

of the two f orm ula tio ns of th e ch al len ger's burd en is e mpl oy ed

.

Let' s co ns id er t he or

igin al fo rmula tio n - the fo rmula tio n se t out in Sa lerno

, Sa ntikos

,

an d Rosseau

. Th e ch al len ger wo uld ha ve to es tab lis h tha t “no se t of circ umsta nc es ex ists

und er wh ich the sta tute wo uld be va lid .” Th is is ac tual ly quite ea sy t o e s t a bl ish

. Th e

sta tute pe rmits eve ry $10 crim in al co urt co st to be sp en t on ba na na s. Thus , ev ery $10

co urt co st may be sp en t unc on stituti on al ly. Th ere is the ref ore no se t of circ umsta nc es

und er wh ich the sta tute’s in te n d ed use of the fun ds is no t at lea st pa rtly fo r ba na na s.

Th is b ein g the c as e, the ch al len ger mee ts h is b urde n. The sta tute is unco ns titutio na l.

Nex t, let’ s co ns id er the al tere d fo rmula tio n. Th e ch al len ger wo uld ha ve to sh ow

tha t the re are “no po ss ib le co ns titutio na l ap pl ica tio ns of the sta tute.” Th is the ch al len ger

ca nn ot d o. Eve ry $10 co urt co st ma y b e sp en t on ap pl es . Ex pe nd itures on ap pl es are

pe rfe ctly co ns titutio na l. Th is be in g th e ca se , th e ch al len ger d oe s n ot me et h is b urde n.

Th e sta tute is co ns titutio na l.

Th e ori gina l fo rmula tio n an d the al tere d fo rmula ti o n pro duc e di ffe ren t res ults.

Th e fa ct tha t the t

w o f o r m ula tio ns of the ch al len ger’s burd en yie ld co ntra ry res ults

-7-sh ow s th at th e two for mula tio ns are no t the sa me.

Wh ich formu latio n is correc t?

Th e or igin al fo rmula tio n co mes stra ight fro m the Un ited Sta tes Supre me Court

( Sa lerno ) an d fro m the pri or op in io ns of thi s Court ( Sa ntikos an d Ross e a u )

. T h e al tere d

fo rmula tio n is just tha t - an al tere d ver sio n o f t he ori gina l fo rmula tio n. Th e ori gina l

fo rmula tio n is t h e co rrec t fo rmula tio n ba se d on pre ce de nt. And if the ori gina l

fo rmula tio n is the co rrec t fo rmula tio n, the n the res ult und er the ori gina l fo rmula tio n is

the co rrec t res ult. Th e hy po the tica l sta tute is unc on stituti on al

. Co r r es po nd in gly, the

al tere d form ula tio n is a n in co rrec t for mula tio n that reac he s an inc orre ct result. Un de r

the al tere d f

o rmula tio n, the hy po the tica l sta tute with bo th co ns titutio na l an d

unc on stituti on al as pe cts in eve ry ap pl ica tio n is fo und to be co ns titutio na l. Th is is wro ng.

Th e two fo rmula tio ns are no t equiv al en t. Th e fa ct tha t the re is a c on stitu tio na l

as pe ct to a sta tute (e. g., buy in g a p p les ) do es no t mea n the re is a se t of circ umsta nc es

und er wh ich the sta tute is co ns titutio na lly va lid

. Th e two fo rmula tio ns pro duc e di ffe ren t

res ults. A c o u r t ’ s u se of the al tere d fo rmula tio n es se nti al ly mea ns tha t the co urt is

emp lo yin g a n in co rrec t fra mew ork to a na lyz e th e fa cia l co ns titutio na lity of a sta tute.

This cou rt u sed th e alte red formu latio n t o an alyze sec tio n art icle 102 .020

As no ted ea rlie r, thi s Court b e gan its an al ys is co rrec tly by citi ng the ori gina l

fo rmula tio n of the ch al len ger's burd en as an no unc ed in Sa lerno

, Sa ntikos

, an d Rosseau

. But

the n the Court too k a di ffe ren t turn, so to sp ea k, an d pro no unc ed an al tere d ver sio n of

-8-the ch al len ger’s burd en

. Ha vin g ma de thi s wro ng turn, the Court emp lo ye d the al tere d

fo rmula tio n th rough out th e res t of i ts o pi ni on an d n eve r got ba ck o n th e righ t trac k.

On p age 12 o f the op in io n, this Court ma kes the fol lo win g de cla rati on :

To de t e r m in e wh eth er a sta tute al wa ys op era tes unc on stituti on al ly in al l po ss ib le circ umsta n c e s , w e must lo ok to se e if the re are po ten tia l ap pl ica tio ns of the sta tute tha t are co ns titutio na lly va lid

. In thi s ca se , we
must ex am in e wh eth er t he al lo ca tio n of co urt co sts as se ss ed purs uan t to Artic le 1 02. 020 al lo ws f

or c on stituti on al ly v al id exp en di tures

.

W ith al l due res pe ct, thi s de cla rati o n i s in co rrec t. “Con stituti on al ly va lid

ex pe nd itures ” are the wro ng thi ngs fo r wh ich to se arc h. Con sid er an equiv al en t se arc h

in our ba na na s- an d- ap pl es ex am pl e. Such a se arc h wo uld in de ed fin d a co ns titutio na lly

va lid ex pe nd iture - an e x p e n d iture on ap pl es

. But the fa ct tha t a sta tute al lo ws fo r a

co ns titutio na lly -v al id ex pe nd iture do es no t equa te to a co ns titutio na l ap pl ica tio n of the

sta tute. Ind ee d, al on g w ith eve ry sta tutori ly- auth ori zed ex pe nd iture on ap pl es the re is

an unc on stituti on a l s t a t utori ly- auth ori zed ex pe nd iture on ba na na s. Th e hy po the tica l

sta tute stil l op era tes unc on stituti o n a l l y - eve n wh en the re is a co ns titutio na lly va lid

ex pe nd iture.

But ha vin g ma de the ab ov e- quoted de cla rati on , thi s Court mov ed on in se arc h of

co ns ti t u tio na lly -v al id ex pe nd itures und er Artic le 102 .0 20. Th e Court fo und on e.
Spe cif ica lly

, thi s Court fo und tha t so me of the re ven ue fro m the DNA rec ord fee is

sta tutori ly auth ori z e d t o fun d DNA- rela ted ex pe ns es

. See Peraz a at 17- 18. M r. Per az a

agre es tha t und er thi s Court’ s ne w de fin itio n (co urt co sts are co ns titutio na l if ex pe nd ed

-9-fo r crim in al justi ce purp os es ), DNA- rela ted ex pe nd itures are co ns titutio na lly va lid

. But

M r. P era za di sa grees with this Court' s co nc lusi on ba se d o n th is f in di ng.

Up on fin di ng tha t Artic le 102 .0 20 auth ori zes a co ns titutio na lly -v al id ex pe nd iture,

the Court co nc lud ed tha t the re is a co ns titutio na l ap pl ica tio n of the s t a t ute. Id

. at 19

(“Bec aus e a po rtio n of the DNA rec ord fee co lle cted is de po sit e d in to the crim in al

justi ce pl an ni ng ac co unt, an d the crim in al justi ce pl an ni ng ac co unt is sta tutori ly require d

t o r e i m burs e mon ies sp en t co lle ctin g DNA sp ec ime ns fro m of fen de rs ch arge d with

ce rtai n of fen se s (in clud in g aggrav ate d se xua l as sa ult of a ch ild und er 14), we ho ld tha t

the sta tute al lo ws fo r co ns titutio na lly pe rmitte d ap pl ica tio ns .”). Th e Court the n de cla red

tha t thi s mea nt M r. Per az a ha d “no t es tab lis he d tha t Artic le 102 .0 20 op era tes

unc on stituti on al ly i n a ll c ircum sta nc es .” Id

.

Th e Court es se nti al ly fo und the equiv al en t of an auth ori zed ex pe nd iture on app les

und er our hy po the tica l sta tute. And on the stre ngth of thi s fin di ng, the Court de cla red

tha t thi s mea nt the sta tute ha d a co ns titutio na l ap pl ica tio n. Acc ord in g to the Court, M r.

Per az a ha d fa ile d to ca rry hi s burd en to sh ow the re are no po ss ib le co ns tituti o n a l

ap pl ica tio ns of the sta tute. Of co urse , t h e burd en the Court sa id M r. Per az a fa ile d to

mee t is th e err on eo us, al tere d f orm ula tio n o f a ch al len ger's burd en

.

Ha d thi s burd en be en emp lo ye d by the atto rne y gene ral in an al yzi ng Sec tio n

51. 961

, tha t sta tute wo uld no t ha ve be en fo und to be unc on stituti on al

. Th e Legis la ture

wo uld ha ve h ad no ne ed to a men d th e sta tute.

-10-Un de r the ori gina l formula tio n of the burd en , th e res ult wo uld be di ffe ren t. As

men tio ne d e arl ier, the fa ct th at a sta tute a llo ws f or a co ns titutio na lly -v al id exp en di ture

do es no t mea n the sta tute ca n be co ns titutio n al ly ap pl ied

. Ev ery time the sta tute is

a p p l i ed (i.e
., eve ry time a co nv icte d de fen da nt pa ys the DNA rec ord fee ) the r e v e n u e

ma y be us e d o n unc on stituti on al ex pe nd itures

. To put thi ngs in the terms of our
hy po the tica l ex am pl e, eve ry DNA rec ord f e e ma y be sp en t on ba na na s. Th is is

unc on stituti on al

.

Th is Court' s op in io n se ems to mis s the sign ifi ca nc e of a ver y imp orta nt fa ct. Th at

fa ct is tha t at the sa me time Artic le 102 .0 20 auth ori zes a co ns titutio na lly -v al id

ex pe nd iture, the sta tute al so auth ori zes unc on stituti on al ex pe nd itures

. Th is Court

de cla red on pa ge 18 o f the op in io n th at th is w as no t a p rob lem at a ll:

Th e Firs t Court in sis ted tha t, eve n if DPS were reim b u r s e d fo r DN A-re la ted ex pe nd itures

, the fee is ne ver the les s u nc ons t it u t io nal be ca u se the crim in al j u s t i c e pl an ni ng ac co unt fun ds oth er pro jec ts tha t are no t rela ted to ma na ging the sta tewi de crim in al DNA da tab as e. Ho wev er, if we

were to fo llo w thi s an al ys is, it wo uld be en ough fo r a pa rty bri ngin g a fa cia l

co ns titutio na l ch al len ge to sh ow tha t so me po ss ib le ap pl ica t i o n s o f a
sta tute are unc on stituti on al in ord er to justi fy in va lid ati ng eve ry ap pl ica tio n of tha t sta tute.

R e s p e ctful ly, thi s sta teme nt is wro ng. It is in co ns iste nt with the ori gin a l

fo rmula tio n of a ch al len ger”s burd en

. Un de r the o r i gi n a l fo rmula tio n, of co urse , the

ch al len ger must sh ow tha t no se t of circ umsta nc es ex ists in wh ich the sta tute wo uld be

va lid

. He re, M r. Per az a ha s sh ow n no t on ly tha t so me ap pl ica tio ns of Artic le 102 .0 20

-11-are unc on stituti on al

, but tha t eve ry a pp lic ati on of the sta tute is unc on stituti on al

. Th is

is be ca use eve ry time the fee is ch arge d, the rev en ue ma y be sp en t on pro jec ts unre la ted

to t he ma na ging the sta tewi de crim in al DNA da tab as e. Th es e pro jec ts argua bl y do n' t

mee t thi s Court' s ne w tes t fo r co ns titutio na l co urt co sts

. Th e Court ac tual ly di d no t

an al yze the co ns titutio na lity of the se oth er autho rize d exp en di tures

. Th is was be ca use

the Court, ha vin g fo und a co ns titutio na lly -v al id ex pe nd iture, fo und its jo b to ha ve be en

co mpl eted

. In oth er wo rd s, ha vin g fo und a co ns titutio na lly -v al id ex pe nd iture on ap pl es ,

the Court fo und no ne ed to ex am in e th e ex pe nd itures auth ori zed for ba na na s.

Th e Co u r t ' s eva lua tio n of sta tutes with sim ulta ne ous co ns titutio na l an d

unc on stituti on al as pe ct s i s f l aw ed

. Un de r the ori gina l fo rmula tio n of a ch al len ger's

burd en , such sta tutes are unc on stituti on a l

. O nl y by ap pl yin g the mis tak en , al tere d

fo rmula tio n of the burd en do es the Court fin d tha t Artic le 102 .0 20 do es no t co ntra ven e

the Con stituti on . Th e Co urt's inn oc en t ref orm ula tio n of a ch al len ger's burd en ha s le d

to th is re sult. Reh ea rin g sho uld be gran ted

.

Issu e Two:

The de cis ion of th e Cou rt c r a ft i n g a bro ad ne w rule to de fine cou rt cos ts ha s

crea te d a ne w con st itu tio na l eq ua l pr ot ection pro blem an d do ub le jeop ardy iss ue
.

In Peraz a, thi s Court ov errul ed Ca rson an d fun da men tal ly al tere d the de fin itio n of

co urt co sts fro m the la st fiv e ye ars of pre ce de nt. See Peraz a at 10, 14

- 1 5

. B u t t h e r e is

an oth er t w i s t o f de fin itio ns in the co urt’s op in io n. In on e pa ragra ph the Court ho ld s:

-12-" W e co nti nue to ho ld

, as we di d in W eir
, tha t co urt co sts sh ould be rela t e d t o t h e

rec oup men t of cos ts of jud ici al reso urc es

. Peraz a at 14. Th e Court the n sta tes on the

ne xt pa ge, “We ho ld tha t, if the sta tute und er wh ich co urt co sts a r e as se ss ed (or an

in terc on ne cted sta tute) pro vid es fo r an al lo ca tio n of such co urt co sts to be ex pe nd ed fo r
legiti ma te crim in al just ice pu rpo ses , the n the sta tute al lo ws f o r a c o ns titutio na l

ap pl ica tio n tha t wil l no t ren de r the co urts tax gath ere rs in vio la tio n of the se pa rati on of

po wers cla use. ” Peraz

a at 15

.

Ass umin g tha t the Court’ s se cond pr onoun ce d ho ld in g is the ne w de fin itio n, the re

ari se s se rio us co ns titutio na l is sues tha t were unfo rse en on ori gina l sub mis sio n.

If th e su m pa id up on con vic tio n is to su pp ort “reaso n a b le c rim in al just ice pu rpo ses ,” it is no longer a c ou rt co st bu t a p un ish me nt

.

Fel on s co nv

icte d of nume rous “sex ” crim es pa y a $250 fee fo r rea so na bl e crim in al

justi ce purp os es

. T E X

. C OD E C RIM

. P RO C

. A R T

. 102 .0 20(a )(1). M isd eme an an ts co nv

icte d

of nume rous “sex ” crime s p ay $50. T E X

. C O D E C R IM

. P R O C

. A R T

. 102 .0 20(a

)(2). And

if the de fen da nt is pl ac ed on pro ba tio n, the fee is $34. T E X

. C O D E C R IM

. P R O C

. A R T

.

102 .0 20(a )(3). T he se sta cke d f

ee s in cre as e ac co rd in g to the se rio usn es s of the of fen se

a n d r e m ark ab ly res emb le the pun ish men t sc al e fo r tho se co nv icte d of va rio us crim es

.

Fel on s do mor e time tha n a pe rso n co nv icte d of a mis de mea no r or so meo ne pl ac ed on

pro ba tio n.

Th e Fif th Amen dm en t to the Un ited Sta tes Con stituti on pro vid es : “no r sh al l an y

-13-pe rso n be sub jec t fo r the sa me of fen se to be twic e pl ac ed in jeo pa rd y of lif e or limb

.. .. ”

U. S. CONST. A M E N D

. V

. En co mpa ss ed with in the do uble jeo pa rd y pro hi bi tio ns is the

guara nte e of pro tecti on aga in st multip le pun ish men ts fo r the sa me of fen se

. North

Ca rolina v. Pea rce , 39 5 U. S. 7 11, 717 , (19 69).

By requiri ng M r. Per az a to pa y fo r fun ds ex pe nd ed on “legiti ma te crim in al justi ce

purp os es ,” he is n ow

be in g puni sh ed twic e fo r the sa me o ffe ns e.

The ne w rule de fini ng cou rt cos ts as “reaso na bly relate d to crim in al just i c e pu rpo ses ” raise s is su es u nd er th e Eq ua l Prote ct ion Claus e. (EP C)

Fel on s ma y be a sus pe ct cla ss und er Equa l Pro tecti on Juris prud en ce sub jec t to the

pro tecti on s of stri ct sc rutin y. Th e EP C of the 14th Amen dm en t pro hi bi ts an y sta te fro m

de ny in g “to an y pe rso n with in its juris di ctio n the equa l pro tecti on o f t h e la ws. ” U. S.

C O N S T

. A M E N D

. X IV

. At a min imum, sta tutory cla ss ifi ca tio n s imp lic ati ng the EP C are

sub jec ted to rati on al ba sis rev iew - mea ni ng the cla ss ifi ca tio n must be rati on al ly rela ted

to a legi tima te gove rnm en t purp os e. Cla rk v. Jeter

, 486 U. S. 456

, 461 (198 8). At the oth er

en d of the sp ec trum, cla ss ifi ca tio ns ba se d on rac e or na tio na l ori gin, an d tho se af fec tin g

fun da men tal rights are sub jec t to stri ct sc rutin y - mea ni ng tha t the cla ss ifi ca tio n must be

na rrow ly tai lo red t o a c h i e ve a co mpe lli ng gove rnm en t purp os e. Id (in tern al cita tio ns

omi tted ). A co urt lo ok s t o the “trad itio na l in di cia of sus pe ctn es s” to de termi ne if the

cla ss ifi ca tio n meri ts stri ct sc rutin y. Sa n Antoni o Ind ep. Sc h. Dist. v. Rodrig

uez , 411 U. S. 1, 28

( 197 3). Stric t sc rutin y is ap pro pri ate if the cla ss is “sa dd led with such di sa bi liti es , o r

-14-sub jec ted to such a hi sto ry of purp os eful une qual trea tme n t, or rele gate d to such a

po siti on of po liti ca l po werl es sn es s as to co mma nd ex trao rd in ary pro tecti on fro m the

ma jo rita ria n p ol itic al pro ce ss .” Id

.

Con vic ted fel on s, es pe cia lly tho se co nv icte d of se xua l of

fen se s, are sub jec t to the

in di cia of sus pe ctn es s. Up on co nv icti on , a fel on lo se s the right to vo te, is se nt to pri so n

or is sub jec ted to pro ba tio n, sub jec ted to the op pro bri um of so cie ty, ha s l i m ited jo b

op po rtuni ties

, an d fa ce s res tricti on s as to wh ere he ca n liv e. In ligh t of the se ha nd ica ps ,

a fel on is “rele gate d to a po siti on o f po liti ca l po werl es sn es s” meri tin g hi gher sc rutin y.

But see: City of Cl ebu rne v. Cl

ebu rne Living

Ctr . 47 3 U. S. 4 32, 440 (198 5) (Court ref uses to

rec ogn ize the men tal ly reta rd ed as a sus pe ct cla ss

. Rea so ns tha t cla ss ifi ca tio ns are

sus pe ct if there is “no se ns ib le groun d fo r di ffe ren tia l trea tmen t”). Bec aus e the sta tute

regula tes the rights of fel on s, an argua bl e sus pe ct cla ss ifi ca tio n , i t s h o u l d be sub jec ted

to s trict s crutin y.

Th e sta tutes es tab lis hi ng the DNA Rec ord s Fee are co ns titutio na lly in va lid und er the Equa l Pro tecti on Cla use bec aus e the y are no t na rrow ly tai lo red

to ac hi eve the co mpe lli ng gove rnm en t in tere st of ob tai n i n g rec oup men t fo r crim in al justi ce purp os es

. Ope rati ng in co nc ert with T E X

. G O V ' T C O D E § 411 .1 471

, CCP A R T

. 102 .0 20(h ) imp os es

a $250 co urt co st fo r DNA Tes t i n g f or tho se de fen da nts co nv

icte d of ce rtai n fel on ies

an d a $50 ch arge fo r tho se co nv icte d of ce rtai n mis de mea no rs. Th e co urt’s ho ld in g tha t

the se fee s wh ich fun d “legiti ma te crim in al justi ce purp os es ” is ar gu a b l y a co mpe lli ng

-15-gove rnm en t in tere st fo r the purp os e of stri ct sc rutin y rev iew

. Ho wev er, the sta tutes

cre ati ng th e me ch an ism for reim burs eme nt a re n ot n arr ow ly ta ilo red for tha t purp os e.

Inste ad of ref

und in g DPS d i r e c t l y , the sta tutes pre se nt a roun da bo ut reim burs eme nt

struc ture.

The di fferen ce bet wee n the DNA Re cord Fee for Felon s an d th ose con vic te d of mi sd em ean ors is furt he r pro of th at th e pu rpo se of th e $25 0 fee is no t na r r o w ly tai lored to re cou pm en t.

T h e r e i s no evi de nc e tha t a DNA tes t co sts mor e fo r so meo ne co nv icte d of a

fel on y tha n a mis de mea no r. Th e pri ce DPS pa ys fo r tes tin g fo r bo th cla ss es is the sa me,

ye t a fel on pa ys $250 fo r hi s tes t an d the pe rso n co nv icte d of a mis de mea no r pa ys $50.

Th ere is no di sc ern ib le rea so n fo r the di ffe ren ce in pri ce oth er t h a n a n imp ermi ss ib le

pun itiv e purp os e or a de sir e to ob tai n mor e rev en ue fo r the sta te. If t h i s isn ’t en ough

of an i n d i c a tio n of an ulteri or moti ve fo r the co nv ol uted reim burs eme nt struc ture, a

pe rso n pl ac ed on co mmun ity sup erv isi on ne ed on ly pa y $34 fo r DNA Tes tin g; an d thi s

fee is c red ited di rec tly to DPS. The fee struc ture is no t na rrow ly ta ilo red to rei mburs e

DPS f or th e co st o f tes tin g an d f ai ls a n E qual Pro tecti on stric t scr utiny an al ys is.

Ev en if felon s are no t a su sp ect class , th e DNA Reco rd Fee st atu te s ma y st ill be

un con st itu tio na l un de r th e EP C be cau se i f t he y are no t rati on ally relate d to th e legiti ma te gove rnm en t in te rest of ob tai ni ng rec ou pm en t for co urt cos ts

.

Fo r the sa me rea so ns the DNA Rec ord Fee sta tutes fa il to surv ive stri ct sc rutin y,

the y migh t no t surv

ive rati on al ba sis rev

iew

. Ra tio na l ba sis rev

iew is a mor e pe rmis siv e

sta nd ard tha n s trict s crutin y; it is used wh en a court con clud es tha t a statute imp lic ate s

-16-ne ith er a sus pe ct clas sif ica tio n nor a funda men tal right. Hell er v. Do e , 50 9 U. S. 3 12, 319

(199 3). La ws und er rati on al ba sis re v i e w en jo y a "s tron g pre sump tio n of va lid ity" an d

wil l no t “run af

oul of t h e E q u a l P r ote ctio n cla use if the re is a rati on al rela tio ns hi p

be twee n th e d isp ari ty o f trea tmen t an d s ome gove rnm en t purp os e. ” Id . a t 319 -2 0.

Cla ss ifi ca tio ns ca n fa il rati on al ba sis rev iew f o r two ma in rea so ns

. Firs t, a

cla ss ifi ca tio n fa ils rati on al ba sis rev ie w i f t h e cla ss ifi ca tio n “rests on groun ds wh ol ly

irr e lev an t to the sta te's in tere st” Hell er , at 324 (cita tio ns omi tted ), or is so atte nua ted to

the as se rted goa l as to “ren de r the di stin ctio n arb itra ry or irra tio na l.” Cleb urne , 473 U. S.

at 446

. Sec on d, a cla ss ifi ca tio n fa ils if its ob jec tive is ill egiti ma te or imp ermi ss ib le. Id

. Fo r

ex am pl e, “a ba re de sir e to ha rm a po liti ca lly unp op ula r group ” i s no t a legi tima te sta te

in tere st. Id

. at 447

. In oth er wo rd s, a sta tute with an evi de ntl y in vid io us purp os e wil l no t

sta nd eve n if

stric t scr utiny

is n ot in vo ked

. Id

.

A sta tute with an in vid io us purp os e, or cre ate d with a ba re de sir e to ha rm wil l be

struc k do wn und er rati on al ba sis rev iew

. In Cleb urne , the Court in va lid ate d a city zo ni ng

ord in an ce requiri ng a sp ec ia l use pe rmit for the estab lis hme nt of a group ho me for the

men tal ly reta rd e d

, a fter the city ha d de ni ed a pe rmit. Cleb urne

. 473 U. S. at 435

. Th e

Court he ld tha t the men tal ly reta rd ed were no t a sus pe ct cl a s s u n d e r the 14th

Amen dm en t eve n t h o u gh the cla ss wa s of ten the sub jec t of di sc rimi na tio n an d

“de ep -s ea ted pre jud ice .” Id

. at 438

. Non eth ele ss , the Court fo und tha t the z on in g

ord i n a n c e wa s in va lid ate d by the Equa l Pro tecti on Cla use be ca use it ap pe are d to be

-17-ba se d upo n an irra tio na l pre jud ice ab out th e me nta lly reta rd ed

. Id

. a t 450

. In sup po rt

of thi s co nte nti on , the Court no ted tha t the Cleb urne City Coun cil 's de cis io n in de ny in g

the ord in an ce wa s ce nte red upo n the ne gativ e atti tude s of ne arb y pro pe rty ow ne rs ab out

the ho me, an d fea rs the eld erl y h a r b o r e d f o r the men tal ly reta rd ed

. Id

. , at 448

. Th e

Court furth er he ld tha t the se emi ngl y l e gitima te rea so ns fo r de ni al in clud in g av oi di ng

c o n c e n t rati on of po pula tio n an d co nges tio n of the stre ets were in va lid be ca use t h e

co unc il do es no t ex pl ai n wh y ap artm en t ho uses , h o sp ita ls, an d the lik e co uld lo ca te in

the are a w ith out a pe rmit. Id

. a t 450

.

Un do ubte dl y, rea so na bl e co u rt co sts lev ied aga in st a de fen da nt are rati on al ly

rela ted to the legi tima te sta te purp os e of rec oup in g its lo ss es

. Ho we v e r , the DNA

Rec ord Fee sta tute ma y n ot s urviv e ra tio na l ba sis revi ew f or two rea so ns

.

Firs t, the disti nc tio ns cre ate d by the statute are no t rati on al ly rela ted to the state

in tere st of rec oup men t. It is im p e r m i s sib le tha t a fel on be fo rce d to pa y fo r crim in al

justi ce pro grams , unre la ted to hi s tria l, be ne fitti ng t h e ge ne ral pub lic

. Th e thre e tiere d

pa y str ucture i s h ighl y sus pe ct. Reh ea rin g sho uld be gran ted

.

-18-Res pe ctful ly s ubmi tted

,

Alex an de r Bun in Chi ef P ubli c De fen de r Ha rris Coun ty Te xa s

/s/ Ja ni J. Masel

li W ood

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jan i J. Mase lli Wood Ass ista nt P ubli c De fen de r Ad am Pirt le Inter n Ha rris Coun ty Pub lic Def en de rs Off

ice 120 1 Fra nk lin , 13 th F lo or Ho usto n Te xa s 77 002 Jan i.M as ell i@p do .h ctx .n et (713 ) 368 -0 016 (713 ) 368 -4 322 TBA No. 007 911 95

-19-CERT IFICATE OF COM PLIANCE WIT H RU LE 9 .4

I he reb y certif

y that this do cume nt co mpl ies with the require men ts of Tex . R. App . P. 9. 4(i) be ca use the r e a re 450 0 wo rd s in thi s do cume nt, ex clud in g the ca pti on , the sign ature lin es an d thi s ce rtifi ca te, as ca lc u l a ted by the Core l W ord Per fec t co mpute r pro gram us ed to p rep are it.

/s/ Ja ni J. Masel li W ood

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jan i J. Mase lli Wood Ass ista nt P ubli c De fen de r Ha rris Coun ty Te xa s

CERT IFICATE OF SE RVICE

Purs uan t to Tex

. R. App

. Pro c. 9. 5, thi s ce rtifi es tha t on July 23

, 2 015

, a co py of the fo rego in g wa s ema ile d to Lis a M cM in n, Sta te Pro se cutin g Attorn ey thro ugh tex fil e. co m at th e fo llo win g ad dr es s:

Lis a M cM in n Lis a. M cM in n@S PA. tex as .go v

/s/ Ja ni J. Masel li W ood

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jan i J. Mase lli Wood Ass ista nt P ubli c De fen de r Ha rris Coun ty Te xa s

-20-