## No. PD
- 0480
- 1 5

In the Court of Criminal Appeals

     

     No. 01

- 13

- 00441

- CR In the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas at Houston

     

     No. 1367861 In the 260 th District Court of Harris County, Texas

     

     

## JOSHUA LONDON Appellant V. 

## THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee

     

     

## STATE ’ S BRIEF ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

     

     D EVON A NDERSON District Attorney Harris County, Texas
E RIC K UGLER Assistant District Attorney Harris County, Texas TBC No. 796910 kugler_eric@ dao.hctx.net 1201 Franklin, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002 Tel.: 713

- 755

- 5826 FAX: 713

- 755

- 5809 Counsel for Appellee ORAL ARGUMENT PERMITTED PD-0480-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 8/26/2015 2:23:33 PM Accepted 8/26/2015 2:37:22 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKSTATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

This Court has permitted oral argument in this case

.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE PARTIES
Counsel for the State:
Devon Anderson

 District Attorney of Harris County Eric Kugler

 Assistant District Attorney on appeal
Chris Morton

 Assistant District Attorney at trial Appellant or criminal defendant:
Joshua London Counsel for Appellant: Jani Wood

 Assistant Public Defender on appeal
Charles Brown

 Counsel at trial Trial Judge: Hon. Jim Anderson

 Presiding Judge (visiting)
Hon. Brad Hart

 Presiding Judge (elected)2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

................................ ................. 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PARTIES

................................ ................................ .... 1
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

................................ ................................ ...................... 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

................................ ................................ ................... 5
ISSUE PRESENTED

................................ ................................ ................................ . 5 The Court of Appeals determined that the constitutional challenge to the Sheriff’s fees could not be raised for the first time on appeal. The basis for the challeng e was not available to Mr. London until 19 days after the judgment was signed. Did the Court of Appeals err in refusing to consider a challenge that was only available post

- trial, in derogation of Landers v. State?

................................ .. 5 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

................................ ................................ ......... 5
ARGUMENT

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 6 The appellant did not preserve the issue he raised on appeal because he failed to object in the trial court on the same basis and f ailed to develop a record on how the court costs were applied to him.

................................ ................................ ....... 6 PRAYER

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND COMPLIANCE

................................ ............. 143 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES Brady v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals , 795 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. 1990)

................................ ................................ ................. 11 Cardenas v. State , 423 S.W.3d 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)

................................ ................................ 8 Carrollton

- Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist ., 826 S.W.2d 489 (Tex. 1992)

................................ ................................ ................. 11 Clark v. State , 305 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2010)

................................ ................................ ..................... 7 Curry v. State , 910 S.W.2d 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995)

................................ ............................ 7, 8 Johnson v. State , 14

- 14

- 00475

- CR (Tex. App.

– Ho uston [14th Dist.] Aug. 25, 2015, no pet. h.)

................................ ................. 9 Johnson v. State , 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)

................................ ................................ 8 Landers v. State , 10

- 11

- 00408

- CR, 2012 WL 3799212 (Tex. App.

— Waco Aug. 30, 2012)

................................ ................................ .............................. 9 Landers v. State , 402 S.W.3d 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)

................................ .................... 9, 11, 12 London v. State , 01

- 13

- 00441

- CR, 2015 WL 1778583 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 16, 2015, pet. granted)

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

................................ .............................. 104

Moff v. State , 131 S.W.3d 485 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)

................................ ................................ 8 Rylander v. Caldwell , 23 S.W.3d 132 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2000, no pet.)

................................ ................................ ............................ 11 State v. Rosseau , 398 S.W.3d 769 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2011), aff ’d , 396 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)

................................ .............................. 11 Sturdivant v. State , 445 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. ref’d)

.................... 10
STATUTES

T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. art. 102.011(a)(3) (West 2010)

................................ ........... 7 T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. art. 1 02.011(b) (West 2010)

................................ ................ 8 T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. art. 103.008 (West 2010)

................................ .................. 12
RULES

T EX
. R. A PP

. P . 33.1(a)

................................ ................................ ................................ 6 T EX
. R. A PP

. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A)

................................ ................................ ..................... 7 T EX
. R. A PP

. P. 44.2(a)

................................ ................................ .............................. 125

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE The appellant was charged with possession of cocaine (CR

– 14). He pled “guilty” to the charge, and the court sentenced him to 25 years in prison (CR

– 77). The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. London v. State , 01

- 13

- 00441

- CR, 2015 WL 1778583 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 16, 2015 , pet. granted)

. But t h is Court granted review

.
ISSUE PRESENTED The Court of Appeals determined that the constitutional challenge to the Sheriff ’ s fees could not be raised for the first time on appeal. The basis for the challeng e was not available to Mr. London until 19 days after the judgment was signed. Did the Court of Appeals err in refusing to consider a challenge that was only available post
- trial, in derogation of Landers v. State?
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
T he a ppellant challenged on appeal the constitutionality of the court cost statutes as applied to him . B ut he failed to object in the trial cou rt, to file a formal bill of exception, or to otherwise take any steps to develop the record on how the
court cost statutes w ere actually applied to him

. Therefore, he failed to preserve the constitutional as - applied claim for appellate review, and the court of appeals properly dismissed th at claim on that basis.6 ARGUMENT The appellant claims that the assessment of court costs for summoning witnesses is unconstitutional as applied to him . (App ’ nt PDR Brf. 7 ). Specifically,
h e complains that the assessment violated his right s to confrontation and compulsory process. Thi s argument lacks merit because h e failed to object to that specific court cost at trial , did not develop a record on how the court costs were applied to him, and did not preserve the constitutional issues for appellate review. A notation on the appellant ’ s written judgment states “Court C osts,” and the sum of “$2 94 .00” is typed below that heading (CR

– 35 ). That “$2 94 .00” figure was then crossed out, and the number “329” was written in its place along with

someone ’ s apparent initials (CR

– 77). On the second page of the judgment, the “Co urt ORDERS Defendant to pay all fines, court costs, and restitution as indicated above.” (CR

– 78 ) (emphasis in original). Finally, the district clerk prepared and filed a bill of costs that breaks down the $329 in assessed court costs, including $35 for “ Summonin g Witness/Milea g e .” (CR

– 80).

The appellant d id not preserve the issue he raise d on appeal because h e failed t o object in the trial court on the same basis and f

ailed to develop a record on how the court costs were applied to him . The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require a party to preserve error for appellate review by d emonstrating the error on the record. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 33.1(a) ;7

Clark v. State , 305 S.W.3d 351, 354 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) , aff ’ d , 365 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). The party must make the complaint in a timely manner and state the grounds for the ruling th at the complaining party seeks from the trial court with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were apparent from the context. T EX
. R.
A PP . P. 33.1(a)(1)(A)

. In raising the complaint on appeal, the party must ensure the point of error is the same as the complaint or objection made during trial. Clark , 305 S.W.3d at 354. Even constitutional errors can be waived if a party fails to properly object to the errors at trial. Id . at 355. A challenge to the constitutionality of a statute as applied to a defendant may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Curry v. State , 910 S.W.2d 490, 496 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) . Therefore, if a party ’ s objection at trial does not correspond with its issue on appeal, the party has waived that issue.
C lark , 305 S.W.3d at 354. In the present case, the appellant claim ed on appeal that Article 102.011(a)(3) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure was unconstitutional as applied to him. (App ’ nt Brf. 8). Article 102.011(a)(3) provides that a “defendant

conv icted of a felony or a misdemeanor shall pay the following fees for services performed in the case by a peace officer...$5 for summoning a witness.” T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. art. 102.011(a)(3) (West 2010) . Article 102.011(b) f urther8

provides that a defendant i s also required to pay “ 29 cents per mile for mileage required of an officer to perform a service listed in this subsection and to return from performing that service ,” and “ all necessary and reasonable expenses for meals and lodging incurred by the office r in the performance of services under this subsection .” T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. art. 102.011( b ) (West 2010)

. There was no indication in the bill of costs how much of the $35 “ Summonin g Witness/Milea g e ” fee was for summoning witnesses and how much was for mileage and expenses.
Nevert heless, there is no evidence that the appellant ever objected to the assessment of such court costs on any basis. Therefore, his constitutional claims

were not preserved for appellate review, and the court of appeals properly dismissed his claim

. The app ellant cites Cardenas v. State , 423 S.W.3d 396, 398

– 99 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) , and Johnson v. State , 423 S.W.3d 385, 391

– 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) , in support of his a rgument that an objection was not required. (App ’ nt PDR Brf. 9 ). But those cases dealt with the sufficiency of the evidence to support court costs, not the constitutionality of the court

- cost statutes themselves. It is well

settled that no trial objection is required to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. See Moff v. State , 131 S.W.3d 485, 488

– 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)

. But it is equally well

- settled that a trial o bjection is required to challenge the constitutionality of a statute as applied to a particular litigant. See Curry , 9109

S.W.2d at 496 ; s ee also Johnson v. State , 14

- 14

- 00475

- CR , slip. op. at 6 (Tex. App.

– Houston [ 14th Dist.] Aug. 25, 2015, no pet. h.) ( “ Because neither Johnson

nor Cardenas provides appellant with an exception to the requirement that he preserve his facial constitutional challenge in the trial court, we conclu de that appellant failed to preserve error for appellate review. ” ). Therefore, a trial objection was required in the present case, and the appellant waived his complaint on appeal by failing to make such a trial objection. The appellant also cites Landers v. State , 402 S.W.3d 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) , in support of his argument. (App ’ nt PDR Brf. 10). In Landers , cou rt costs and included fees of $3,718.50 for an attorney pro tem and $440.00 for investigative costs of the prosecutor were assessed against L anders without notice. On appeal, the appellant challenged the statutory authority a nd sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the assessment

. Landers v. State , 10

- 11

- 00408

- CR, 2012 WL 3799212, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Waco Aug. 30, 2012)

. This Court held that Landers was not required to file a motion for new trial to challenge the assessment of such
costs on appeal because his “ complaint was one of law and not facts .” Landers , 402 S.W.3d at 255. A s in all sufficiency challenges, there could be no further factual development of the record because sufficiency c hallenges are based on the existing recor d

.10

In the present case and u nlike Landers , whether the appellant ’ s right s to confrontation and compulsory process w ere violated require d further factual development. Specifically, as highlighted by t he appellant, additional fact

- finding

w as required on “whether this fee is for the State ’ s subpoenas or the defense subpoenas.” (App ’ nt Brf. 8). Additional fact

- finding w as also required on whether the appellant truly “cannot bear the costs associated with the defense of his constitutional rights , ” as he claim e d

. (App ’ nt Brf. 10). Thus, because additional fact

- finding was required in order to support the appellant ’ s as - applied constitutional challenge to the statutory court costs, the appellant should have f iled a motion for new trial, or, in the alternative, a formal bill of exception. See i d. , 402 S.W.3d at 256 (Keller, P.J., concurring). It simply defies logic to allow an as

applied challenge to proceed without an opportunity to develop the rec ord on how the statute was applied to the facts of the particular case. The appellant cites Sturdivant v. State , 445 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2014 , pet. ref ’ d ) , in support of his claim that a formal bill of exception was not required to de velop the record. But like Landers, Sturdivant was challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the assessed fees under Mayer v. State , 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) , rather than the constitutionality of the court cost statute as applied to him. Thus , there could be no further factual development of the record. As

- applied constitutional challenges, on11

the other hand, require a factual development. See State v. Rosseau , 398 S.W.3d 769, 774 (Tex. App.

— San Ant onio 2011), aff ’ d , 396 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (“ Rosseau ’ s motion to quash only raised an ‘ as - applied ’ challenge to the constitutionality of section 22.011(f), which could not be determined pre

- trial because it depends on the facts developed at t rial .”); see also Carrollton

- Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist ., 826 S.W.2d 489, 551 (Tex. 1992) (“ determination of whether statute as applied violates Constitution

‘ requires a fully

- developed factual record

. ’ ” ) (citing Brady v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals , 795 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. 1990) )

. Because the appellant ’ s claim required full factual development, he should have filed a formal bill of exception to develop the record. His failure to do so waived the issue for appellate review. See Landers , 402 S.W.3d a t 255 ( “ A motion for new trial is required to preserve error only when it is necessary to adduce facts not in the record. ” ). Fina lly, the appellant cites a civil case, Rylander v. Caldwell , 23 S.W.3d 132 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2000, no pet.) , in support of his claim that he could not have challenged the constitutionality of Article 102.011(a)(3) under the procedure established by Article 103.008. (App ’ nt PDR Brf. 11). Article 103.008 provides :

“ On the filing of a motion by a defendant not later than one year after the date of the final disposition of a case in which costs were imposed, the court in which the case is pending or was last p ending shall correct any error in the costs .” T EX
. C ODE12

C RIM
. P ROC
. art. 10 3 .0 08 (West 2010) . The Rylander court held that “ seeking a declaration that the statute imposing the costs is unconstitutional ” did not constitute “error” under Article 103.008. R ylander , 23 S.W.3d at 137. But the term “error” has traditionally include d both constitutional and non

- constitutional

errors. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 44.2 (a) . And if a court cost should not have been assessed because it was unconstitutional, then surely there would b e an error in the assessed costs, which could be challenged and corrected under Article 103.008. Thus, Rylander is incorrect and should be r epudiated by this Court . Nevertheless, Rylander is ultimately irrelevant to this case because the appellant was required to develop the record in order to support his a s - applied challenge to the statute and to preserve the issue for appellate review. Landers , 402 S.W.3d a t 255 . The appellant failed to develop such a record. Therefore, his claim was not preserved for appellate review, and the court of appeals properly rejected it.13 PRAYER It is respectfully submitted that the court of appeals properly affirmed the j udgment in this case. Therefore, this Court should a ffirm the ruling of the lower court of appeals for the reasons stated.

D EVON A NDERSON District Attorney Harris County, Texas /s/ Eric Kugler E RIC K UGLER Assistant District Attorney Harris C ounty, Texas 1201 Franklin, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 755

- 5826 kugler_eric@dao.hctx.net TBC No. 79691014 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND COMPLIANCE This is to certify that: (a) the word count function of the computer program used to prepare th is document reports that there are 2, 6 11 words in i t ; and (b) a copy of the foregoing instrument will be served by efile.txcourts.gov to: Jani Wood Assistant Public Defender Harris County, Texas 1201 Franklin, 13th Floor Houston, Texas 770 02 Jani.Maselli@pdo.hctx.net Lisa McMinn State Prosecuting Attorney P.O. Box 13046 Austin, Texas 78711 Lisa.McMinn@SPA.texas.gov

/s/ Eric Kugler E RIC K UGLER Assistant District Attorney Harris County, Texas 1201 Frank lin, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 755

- 5826 TBC No. 796910
Date: A ugust 26 , 20 1 5