ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED

NO. 12-16-00186-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

12TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

NAKELDRICK ERSKINE,

APPELLANT

VS.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

ON APPEAL IN CAUSE NUMBER 007-1422-15

FROM THE 7th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

OF SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

HONORABLE KERRY RUSSELL, JUDGE PRESIDING

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

JAMES W. HUGGLER, JR.

100 E. FERGUSON, SUITE 805

TYLER, TEXAS 75702

903-593-2400

STATE BAR NUMBER 00795437

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

ACCEPTED

12-16-00186-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

12/5/2016 5:47:37 PM

Pam Estes

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 12/5/2016 5:47:37 PM PAM ESTES Clerk
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

APPELLANT:

Nakeldrick Erskine

APPELLANT’S TRIAL COUNSEL

John Jarvis

326 S. Fannin

Tyler, Texas 75702

J. Rex Thompson

321 W. Houston

Tyler, Texas 75702

903-523-8434

APPELLANT’S APPELLATE COUNSEL

James Huggler

100 E. Ferguson, Suite 805

Tyler, Texas 75702

903-593-2400

903-593-3830 (fax)

APPELLEE

The State of Texas 

APPELLEE’S TRIAL COUNSEL

Morgan Biggs

Brent Ratekin

Smith County Criminal District Attorney’s Office

100 N. Broadway, 4th Floor

Tyler, Texas 75702

903-590-1720

903-590-1719 (fax)

APPELLEE’S APPELLATE COUNSEL

Michael West

Smith County Criminal District Attorney’s Office

ii
100 N. Broadway, 4th

 Floor

Tyler, Texas 75702

903-590-1720

903-590-1719 (fax)

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

 PAGE

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii, iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

ISSUE PRESENTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

ISSUE ONE: THE JUDGMENT CONTAINS AN INCORRECT

CALCULATION OF COURT COSTS.

STATEMENT OF FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

ISSUE ONE, RESTATED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

A. Law on Court Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

B. Standard of Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6

C. Application to These Facts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 8

D. Remedy and Relief Requested.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

PRAYER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. §42A.352 (West 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. § 103.009 (a), (c).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.011(a)(6) (West 2014).. . . . . . . . . 7

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 103.001 (West 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 102.001-.142 (West 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 102.021 (West 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 103.006 (West 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §481.115 (a) and (b)(West 2015). . . 2

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §481.112(a) and (d)(West 2015).. . . 3

Tex. LOCAL GOV’T CODE § 133.103 (West 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §12.42(c)(1) (West 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

CASES

Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). . . . . . . . . 4

Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 765.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Howell v. State, 175 S.W.3d 786, 792 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).. . . . . . . . 6

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 315-16, S. Ct. 99 S. Ct. 2786-787.. . . . . . 6

Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385, 390 (Tex. Crim App. 2014.. . . . . . 5, 6

Johnson v. State, 405 S.W.3d 355.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552, 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). . . . . . . . . 6

Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 380 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). . . . 6

Owen v. State, 352 S.W.3d 542, 548 (Tex. App. – Amarillo

 2011, no pet). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Owen v. State, 352 S.W.3d 547.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). . . . . . . . . . 4

v
Williams v. State, 332 S.W.3d 694, 699 (Tex. App. – Amarillo

 2011, pet. denied). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Williams v. State, 332 S.W.3d 698. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

RULES

TEX. R. APP. PROC. 9.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

TEX. R. APP. PROC. 38. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

vi
NO. 12-14-00186-CR 

NAKELDRICK ERSKINE § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

APPELLANT §

§

VS. § 12TH

 JUDICIAL DISTRICT

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS, §

APPELLEE § TYLER, TEXAS

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE JUSTICES

THEREOF:

Comes now Nakeldrick Erskine, (“Appellant”), by and through his

attorney of record, James Huggler, and pursuant to the provisions of TEX.

R. APP. PROC. 38, et seq., respectfully submits this brief on appeal.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant was indicted in Cause Number 007-1422-15 and charged

with the first degree felony offense of possession of a controlled substance

1
with intent to deliver. I CR 4

1

; see TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN.

§481.112(a) and (b) (West 2015). Mr. Erskine entered a plea of guilty

without an agreement as to punishment and received forty years

confinement. I CR 60, 63-64; III RR 17, IV RR 612. Notice of appeal was

timely filed in on June 14, 2016. I CR 62. This Brief is timely filed on or

before December 5, 2016 following proper extension granted by this Court.

ISSUE PRESENTED

ISSUE ONE: THE JUDGMENT CONTAINS AN INCORRECT

CALCULATION OF COURT COSTS.

1

 References to the Clerk’s Record are designated “CR” with a roman numeral preceding

“CR” indicating the correct volume and an arabic numeral following “CR” specifying the correct

page in the record.

2

 References to the Reporter’s Record are designated “RR” with a roman numeral

preceding “RR” indicating the correct volume, and an arabic numeral following “RR” specifying

the correct page.

2
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Appellant was indicted in Cause Number 007-1422-15 and charged

with the first degree felony offense of possession of a controlled substance

with intent to deliver, specifically on September 3, 2015 he possessed four

grams or more of cocaine but less then 200 grams wit the intent to deliver.

I CR 4; see TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §481.112(a) and (d) (West

2015). The first degree punishment range was enhanced with the

inclusion of a previous felony conviction. I CR 4; Tex. Penal Code Ann.

§12.42(c)(1) (West 2015). Mr. Erskine entered a plea of guilty without an

agreement as to punishment. I CR 50; III RR 4, 17.

Following evidence and argument of counsel, the court imposed a

forty year sentence, no fine and court costs. IV RR 60-61. Further

discussion of relevant facts is included below.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The error for this Court to consider involves the improper

assessment of court costs. 

3
ARGUMENT

ISSUE ONE, RESTATED: THE JUDGMENT CONTAINS AN

INCORRECT CALCULATION OF COURT COSTS.

A. Law on Court Costs

Court costs are pre-determined, legislatively-mandated obligations

resulting from a conviction. See, e.g., TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§

102.001-.142 (West 2015) (setting forth various court costs that a

convicted person "shall" pay). A sentencing court shall impose the

statutory court costs at the time a defendant is sentenced. Armstrong v.

State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.

§102.021 (West 2015). Court costs are not punitive in nature and do not

have to be included in an oral pronouncement of a sentence. Weir v.

State, 278 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). 

A cost is not payable by the person charged with the cost until a

written bill is produced or is ready to be produced, containing the items

of cost, signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is

entitled to receive payment of the cost. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.

103.001 (West 2015). The clerk of the trial court is required to keep a fee

4
record, and a statement of an item therein is prima facie evidence of the

correctness of the statement. Owen v. State, 352 S.W.3d 542, 548 (Tex.

App.—Amarillo 2011, no pet.) (citing TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.

103.009(a), (c)). Until a certified bill of costs has been made part of the

record, a defendant has no obligation to pay court costs. Owen, 352

S.W.3d at 547 (citing Armstrong, 340 S.W.3d at 765; Williams v. State,

332 S.W.3d 694, 699 (Tex. App. – Amarillo 2011, pet. denied). 

If a criminal action is appealed, "an officer of the court shall certify

and sign a bill of costs stating the costs that have accrued and send the

bill of costs to the court to which the action or proceeding is transferred or

appealed." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 103.006 (West 2015). 

B. Standard of Review

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). When the imposition of court costs is

challenged on appeal, the court reviews the assessment of costs to

5
determine if there is a basis for the cost, not to determine if there is

sufficient evidence offered attrialto prove each cost. Johnson, 423 S.W.3d

at 390.

The standard for reviewing a legal sufficiency challenge is whether

any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the

offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. at

315-16, 99 S. Ct. at 2786-787; see also Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552,

557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)(sufficiency review of evidence to support order

of repayment of attorney fees as costs).

A challenge to a withdrawal of funds notification is reviewed for an

abuse of discretion. Williams, 332 S.W.3d at 698. A trial court abuses

its discretion when it acts “without reference to any guiding rules and

principles. Howell v. State, 175 S.W.3d 786, 792 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005);

Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 380 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The

reviewing court may modify a withdrawal order on direct appeal if the

evidence is insufficient to support the assessment of court costs. Johnson

v. State, 405 S.W.3d at 355.

6
C. Application to These Facts

The judgment ordered payment of $393.00 in court costs. I CR 63.

The court costs were ordered to be withdrawn from Mr. Erskine’s inmate

trust fund account at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. I CR 65.

The bill of costs prepared by the District Clerk totaled $393.00 in costs,

with an amount owed of $393.00. I CR 78. 

However, the $40 county warrant fee and $10 State Warrant Fee

assessed are not supported by the record. Similarly, Mr. Erskine was not

placed on probation so the $34.00 fee for DNA testing is not appropriate

ly assessed. That fee is imposed is a court grants community supervision.

Tex Code Crim. Proc Ann. art. 42A.352 (West 2016).

Each of the costs always assessed in felony cases are found in the bill

of costs. A time payment fee was properly assessed. I CR 78; OCA Chart

line 29; TEX. LOCAL GOV’T CODE §133.103 (West 2015). Mr. Erskine was

committed and placed in jail initially. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art.

102.011(a)(6) (West 2015). 

The mandatory and discretionary fees supported by the record total

$309.00. This is exactly $84 less than the bill of costs prepared. The only

7
items on the bill of costs not supported by the record is the warrant fees

totaling $50.00 and the DNA fee for probationers. I CR 78. According to

Smith County records, when Mr. Erskine was arrested on September 3,

2015, this was an on-sight arrest, and there is nothing on the record to

contradict this fact. II CR PSI pages 2 and 19. An on-sight arrest

indicates no warrant was issued by a magistrate invoking the two warrant

fees. Mr. Erskine was never placed on probation for this charge.

D. Remedy and Relief Requested

The fees charging a warrant arrest was improperly assessed by the

court. The original judgment should be modified to reflect the true

amount of court costs as assessed in the bill of costs without that fee and

the judgment and order withdrawing funds should be corrected to reflect

an amount of $309.00.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Counsel respectfully

prays that this Court modify the judgment of the trial court and order

8
withdrawing funds.

Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ James Huggler 

James W. Huggler, Jr.

State Bar Number 00795437

100 E. Ferguson, Suite 805

Tyler, Texas 75702

903-593-2400

903-593-3830 fax

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the foregoing Brief of the Appellant has been

forwarded to counsel for the State by electronic filing on this the 5

th day

of December, 2015.

 /s/ James Huggler 

James W. Huggler, Jr.

Attorney for the State:

Mr. Michael West

Smith County Criminal District Attorney’s Office

100 N. Broadway, 4th Floor

Tyler, Texas 75702

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that this Brief complies with TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4, specifically

using 14 point Century font and contains 1,974 words as counted by

Corel WordPerfect version x5.

 /s/ James Huggler 

James Huggler

10