NO. 12-16-00182-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DARRIUS MONTRALL JONES, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 7TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Darrius Montrall Jones appeals his conviction for robbery. In one issue, Appellant argues 

that the judgment imposes unconstitutional court costs. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated robbery. He entered a plea of 

“guilty” to the lesser included offense of robbery with an agreement for seven years deferred 

adjudication supervision.

Subsequently, the State filed an application to proceed to final adjudication, which 

included a request to revoke Appellant’s community supervision. Appellant pleaded “true” to 

the allegations in the application. After giving both parties an opportunity to present evidence 

and arguments, the trial court granted the application to revoke, found Appellant “guilty” of 

robbery, and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for seven years. This appeal 

followed.

COURT COSTS

In his sole issue, Appellant argues that this Court should modify the trial court’s 

judgment and withdrawal order to remove unconstitutional court costs.
2

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.

§ 133.102(a)(1) (West Supp. 2016). 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. 2016); Salinas v. State, No. PD–0170–16, 2017 WL 915525, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 

8, 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, 2017 WL 915525, at *1. 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 *6.

Analysis

Here the final judgment shows a court cost assessment of $289. The bill of costs shows 

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 June 

24, 2016—well before the court of criminal appeals’s decision in Salinas—the court’s holding in 

that case does not apply. See id. Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s issue.

DISPOSITION

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

GREG NEELEY

Justice

Opinion delivered August 9, 2017.

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

AUGUST 9, 2017

NO. 12-16-00182-CR

DARRIUS MONTRALL JONES,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-0025-15)

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.