## NO. 12

- 17

- 00142

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

RANDAL PAIGE GARCIA, APPELLANT

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEA L FROM THE 241ST

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Randal Paige Garcia appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child. In one issue, he argues that some of the court costs imposed on him in the trial co urt’s judgment are
unconstitutional. We affirm.

B ACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with continuous sexual abuse of a child and pleaded “not guilty.” The matter proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found Appellant “guilty” of
the lesser incl uded offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for twenty years. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly, and this appeal followed.

C OURT C OSTS 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 conn ection with the trial of the case.” Johnson v.
State , 423 S.W.3d 385, 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The consolidated fee statute requires a2

defendant to pay a court cost of $133 on conviction of a felony. T EX

. L OC

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 133.102(a)(1) (West Su pp. 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

cr iminal 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 pet ition 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 i n 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 end ed on May 4, 2017

— prior to the court’s mandate in Salinas

— the court’s holding in that case does not apply. 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.

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

J AMES T. W ORTHEN Chief Justice

O pinion delivered March 15 , 2018. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MARCH 1 5 , 2018

NO. 12

- 17

- 001 42

- CR

RANDAL PAIGE GARCIA,

Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241

- 0926

- 15) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being con sidered, 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 obser vance.

James T. Worthen , Chief Justice

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