NO. 12-17-00136-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JULIAN HERNANDEZ-VALDEZ, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 114TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Julian Hernandez-Valdez appeals his conviction for manufacture/deliver of 

methamphetamine. In one issue, he argues that some of the court costs imposed on him in the 

trial court’s judgment are unconstitutional. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with manufacture/deliver of between one and four 

grams of methamphetamine and pleaded “not guilty.” The matter proceeded to a jury trial. The 

jury found Appellant “guilty” as charged, and the trial court sentenced Appellant to 

imprisonment for twenty years. This appeal followed.

COURT COSTS

In his sole issue, Appellant argues that we should modify the trial court’s judgment and 

withdrawal order to remove certain unconstitutional court costs. 

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 on conviction of a felony. TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN.
2

§ 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); Salinas v. State, 523 S.W.3d 103, 105 (Tex. Crim. App. 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, 523 S.W.3d at 105. 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 the 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 113.

Analysis

Here, the bill of costs indicates that the $133 consolidated fee was assessed. However, 

because (1) no petition for discretionary review is pending on Appellant’s claim and (2) the 

proceedings in the trial court ended on April 7, 2017—prior to the court’s mandate in Salinas—

the court’s holding in that case does not apply.1 See id.; see also Salinas v. State, No. PD–0170–

16 (Tex. Crim. App. June 30, 2017) (mandate); Smith v. State, No. 12-17-00089-CR, 2018 WL 

345740, at *4 (Tex. App.–Tyler Jan.10, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication). Appellant’s sole issue is overruled. 

DISPOSITION

Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

GREG NEELEY

Justice

Opinion delivered March 15, 2018.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

 

1 The State filed a letter brief in which it concedes error in the assessment of the $133 fee and urged this 

Court to modify the trial court’s judgment accordingly. The State based its reasoning on the date of the court of 

criminal appeals opinion in Salinas, which was March 8, 2017. However, the court specifically held that the holding 

applied only to cases that ended in the trial court after the issuance of the mandate in Salinas, which did not occur 

until June 30, 2017. See Salinas v. State, 523 S.W.3d 103, 105 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017); see also Salinas v. State, 

No. PD-0170-16 (Tex. Crim. App. June 30, 2017) (mandate).
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MARCH 15, 2018

NO. 12-17-00136-CR

JULIAN HERNANDEZ-VALDEZ,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0088-17)

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.

Greg Neeley, Justice.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.