## NO. 12

- 16

- 00182

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DARRIUS MONTRALL JON ES, APPELLANT

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE §

§

§ AP

PEAL 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.

B ACKGROU ND 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 cou rt granted the application to revoke, found Appellant “guilty” of robbery, and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for seven years. This appeal
followed.

C OURT C OSTS 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 t he 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. T EX

. L OC

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 133.102(a)(1) (West Supp. 2016). The money rece ived 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 cri minal 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 th at 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 mandat e 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 Appella nt’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.

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

G REG N EELEY 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 AP PEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

AUGUST 9 , 2017

NO. 12

- 16

- 00182

- CR

DARRIUS MONTRALL JON ES,

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 t he 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 affirme d , 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.