## PD 1254-15
I N THE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## APPEALS

OF 

## T EXAS



## _______________________________________________

W ILLIAM 

## J OHNSON 

## , Appellant ,

v. T HE 

## S TATE OF 

## T EXAS 

## , Appellee.

_______________________________________________ On Petition for Discretionary Review from the First Court of Appeals in No, 14–14–00475–CR affirming the conviction in cause number 1395867, From the 184th District Court of Harris County, Texas

_______________________________________________ A PPELLANT 

## ’ S 

## P ETITION FOR 

## D ISCRETIONARY 

## R EVIEW



## _______________________________________________ O RAL 

## A RGUMENT 

## N OT 

## R EQUESTED 

## A LEXANDER 

## B UNIN 

## Chief Public Defender Harris County, Texas J ANI 

## M ASELLI 

## W OOD 

## Assistant Public Defender Harris County, Texas TBN. 00791195 1201 Franklin Street, 13th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: (713) 368-0016 Fax: (713) 368-9278 Counsel for Appellant October 26, 2015 PD-1254-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 10/26/2015 8:57:09 AM Accepted 10/27/2015 4:21:19 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERK

## I D E N T IT Y O F 

## P A RT IE S A N D 

## C O U N S E L



## App ell an t: Will ia m Joh ns on SPN# 026 895 55 Ha rris Coun ty Ja il 701 North San Jac in to Ho usto n, TX

770 02
Tria l Pro se cuto r: M r. An tho ny Rob in so n Ass ista nt Di stri ct Atto rne y Ha rris Coun ty, Tex as 120 1 Fra nklin , 6th Flo or Ho usto n, Tex as 770 02
Def en se Coun se l a t Tria l: M r. W al ter M ill er 101 8 Pre sto n, 5th F lo or Ho usto n, Tex as 770 02
Pre sid in g Judge: Ho n. Jan Kro cke r, P res id in g Judge 184 th Di stri ct Co urt Ha rris Coun ty, Tex as 120 1 Fra nklin , 17 th fl oo r Ho usto n, Tex as 770 02
Def en se Coun se l on App ea l: Jan i M as ell i W oo d Ass ista nt P ubli c De fen de r Ha rris Coun ty, Tex as 120 1 Fra nklin , 13 th F lo or Ho usto n, Tex as 770 02

-2-

## Ta bl e o f Co nte nts

Ide nti ty o f Pa rties

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Ta bl e o f Co nte nts
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Ind ex of A utho ritie s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Sta teme nt Re gard in g Oral Ar gumen t.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Sta teme nt o f the Cas e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Sta teme nt o f Pro ce dura l Hi sto ry.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Gro und for Rev

iew

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Th e Court of App ea ls de termi ne d tha t the co ns ti t u ti on al ch al len ge to the co mpr eh en siv e reh ab ili tati on co urt co st co uld no t be rai se d fo r the firs t time on ap pe al

. Th e ba sis fo r the ch al len ge wa s no t av ai la bl e to M r. Joh ns on until 27 da ys af

ter the jud gmen t wa s sign ed

. Did the Court of App ea ls err in ref

u s i ng to co ns id er a ch al len ge tha t wa s on ly av ai la bl e po st- tria l, i n d ero gatio n o f Lan ders v. S tate ?.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Rea so ns for Rev

iew

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Sta teme nt o f Fa cts
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Argumen t.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Th e Co urt of Ap pe al s h eld erro r wa s wa ive d.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Th e err or w as pre se rve d b as ed upo n p rec ed en t fro m thi s Co urt..
. . . . . . . . 7 No o bj ec tio n wa s n ec es sa ry in the tria l co urt..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Pra ye r fo r Rel ief

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Certi fic ate of S erv

ice

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Certi fic ate of Co mpl ia nc e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 App en di x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

-3-

## I N D E X O F 

## A U T H O R IT IE S 

## PAGE

Case s : Ca rdena s v. S tate , 423 S.W .3 d 3 96 (T ex . Crim . Ap p. 201 4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Johnson v. Sta te , 14- 14- 004 75- CR, 2 015 WL 502 565 3 (Tex . Ap p. —H ous ton [14 th Di st. ] Aug. 2 5, 201 5, no . p et. h. ).

. . . . . . pa ss im Johnson v. Sta te , 423 S.W .3 d 3 85 (T ex . Crim . Ap p. 201 4)..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Lan ders v. S tate , 402 S.W .3 d 2 52 (T ex . Crim . Ap p. 201 3).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 8, 9

St atu te s an d R ules : T E X



## . H U M



## . R E S



## . C O D E 

## A N N



## . § 115 .0 01.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
T E X



## . L O C



## . G O V 

## ' T 

## C O D E 

## A N N



## . § 133 .1 02(e )(6)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
T E X



## . R. A P P



## . P. 66. 3(c).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

-4-

## S T A T E M E N T 

## R E G A R D IN G 

## O R A L 

## A R G U M E N T


## Oral argume nt is no t reques ted

.

S T A T E M E N T O F T H E 

## C A S E


## Th is is an ap pe a l f

r o m a co nv

icti on fo r aggra va ted rob be ry - de ad ly wea po n. (C.R. at 38). M r. John so n plea de d guilty and wen t to the co urt fo r pun ish men t with

a pre se nte nc e rep ort. (C.R. at 24- 25). Afte r the rep ort an d tes timo ny wa s pre se nte d,
M r. Jo hn so n wa s se nte nc ed to ei ght ye ars co nf in eme nt in the Tex as Dep artm en t of
Crimi na l Justi ce - Ins titutio na l Divisi on . (C.R . a t 38).

S T A T E M E N T O F T H E 

## P R O C E D U R A L 

## H IS T O R

Y


## In a pub lis he d op in io n, the Fo urtee n t h C o u r t of App ea ls af firm ed M r. Joh ns on ’s co nv

icti on . Johnson v. Sta te , 14- 14- 004 75- CR, 201 5 W L 5 0 2 565 3 (Tex

. App .— Ho usto n [14 th Dis t.] Aug. 25, 201 5, no . pe t. h. ). No moti on fo r reh ea rin g wa s
fil ed

. Afte r an ex ten sio n of time , thi s pe titio n is time ly if fil ed on or be fo re Octo be r 26, 201 5.
G R O U N D F O R 

## R E V IE W


## Th e Court of App ea ls de termi ne d tha t the co ns titutio na l c h a lle nge to the co mpr eh en siv e reh ab ili tati on co urt co st co uld no t be rai se d fo r the firs t time on ap pe al

. Th e ba sis fo r the ch al len ge wa s no t av ai la bl e to M r. Joh ns on until 27 da ys af

ter the jud gmen t wa s sign ed

. Did the Court of App ea ls er r i n ref

usin g to co ns id er a ch al len ge tha t wa s on ly av ai la bl e po st- tria l, i n d ero gatio n o f Lan ders v. S tate ?

-5-

## RE A S O N S F O R 

## R E V IE W



## Th is e xa ct is sue h as be en gran ted in London v. Sta te , PD 048 0- 15.
Th e First Court of Appe al s has de cid ed an imp orta nt questio n of state
or fed era l law in a wa y tha t co nf lic ts with the ap pl ica bl e de cis io ns of the Court of Crim in al App ea ls o r the Supre me Court of the Un ited Sta tes
. T E X



## . R. A P P



## . P. 66. 3(c).
S T A T E M E N T O F 

## F A C T S 

## R E L A T IV E T O 

## G R O U N D 

## R A IS E D


## M r. Joh ns on wa s as se ss ed the co ns ol id a t e d c ourt co st wh ich in clud es sub se ctio n 6 - fun ds fo r co mpr eh en siv e reh ab ili tati on . M r. Joh ns on ch al len ged the fee

as an unc on stituti o n a l t ax vio la tin g the se pa rati on of po wers
. Johnson , 201 5 W L
502 565 3, at *2 (ex pl ai ni ng tha t thi s wa s ch al len ged on ap pe al but “App ell an t di d no t
ch al len ge the as se ss men t of co sts in the tria l co urt thro ugh a moti on fo r ne w tria l or

an y o the r veh icl e. ”). Comp rehensive Reh ab ili

tation
With in the co ns ol id ate d co urt co st is a the “com pre he ns ive reh ab ili tati on ” co st
with 9. 821 8 pe rce nt of the $133 co st goin g f or th is “c ourt c os t.” T E X



## . L O C



## . G O V 

## ' T


## C O D E 

## A N N



## . § 133 .1 02(e )(6)

. Afte r the co st to the co unty , the am oun t is ab out $11. 75.
M on ey di rec ted to thi s pro gram is used to pro vid e r e h a b i lita tio n se rvic es to eli gibl e
i n d i vi d u a ls. See T E X



## . H U M



## . R E S



## . C O D E 

## A N N



## . § 115 .0 01. Th e mon ey is sp en t a t t h e di rec tio n o f the Dep artm en t of As sis tive an d Re ha bi lita tive Serv ice s Id

.

-6-

## A R G U M E N T



## The Cou rt of A

pp eals h eld e rror was waiv ed

. Th e C o u r t o f App ea ls ref used to co ns id er the iss ue be ca use the

co ns titutio na lity

ha d n ot p res en ted it fir st in the tria l co urt:
Th e require men t tha t ap pe lla nt pre se rve err o r i n the tria l co urt on co ns titutio na l ch al len ges ap pl ies to ch al len ges bro ught und er the Tex as Con stituti on . See Heid

elb erg v. Sta te , 144 S.W .3 d 535 , 537 –3 8 (Tex .Cri m.Ap p. 200 4); Curry , 91 0 S. W .2 d a t 496

. Johnson , 20 15 W L 50 256 53, at *3

. The error was pre serv ed bas ed up on pre ced en t from th is Co urt

. Th is Co urt exp la in ed tha t ch al len ges to co urt co sts ca n be rai se d fo r the firs t
time on ap pe al an d “[c] on vic ted de fen da nts ha ve co ns tructiv e no tice of ma nd ato ry

co urt co sts se t by st a t ute an d the op po rtuni ty to ob jec t to the as se ss men t of co urt

co sts aga in st the m fo r the firs t ti m e o n a p p e al or in a pro ce ed in g und er Artic le
103 .0 08 of the Tex as Cod e of Crimi na l Pro ce dure .” Ca rdena s v. Sta te , 423 S.W .3 d 396 , 399 (Tex

. Crim. App

. 2 0 1 4)

. In a co mpa ni on ca se de cid ed the sa me da y, Johnson v.
Sta te , the Court furth er exp la in ed tha t be ca use the cos t bi ll is most likel y unav ai la bl e

at the time of the jud gmen t, an “App ell an t ne ed no t ha ve ob jec ted at tria l to rai se a
cla im ch al len ging the ba se s of as se ss ed co sts on ap pe al .” Johnson v. Sta te , 423 S.W .3 d
385 , 39 1 (Te x. Crim. App . 20 14).

-7-

## Th e Court of App ea ls he ld tha t neith er of tho se ca se s al lo w e d f or a

co ns titutio na l ch al len ge on ap pe al :
Bec aus e ne ith er Johnson no r Ca rdena s p r o vi d es ap pe lla nt with an ex ce pti on to the r e q u i r eme nt tha t he pre se rve hi s fa cia l co ns titutio na l ch al len ge in the tria l co urt, we co nc lud e tha t ap pe lla nt fa ile d to pre se rve e r r o r fo r ap pe lla te rev

iew

. See Karenev , 281 S.W .3 d at 434 ; He id elb e r g, 144 S.W .3 d at 537 –3 8; Curry , 910 S.W .2 d at 496

. And , be ca use ap pe lla nt fa ile d to pre se rve erro r, h is s ec on d i ss ue is ove rrule d. Johnson , 20 15 W L 50 256 53, at *3

. No ob ject ion was ne ces sary in t he trial co urt

. Th is ca se is sim ila r to Lan ders v. Sta te wh ere thi s Court ex pl ai ne d t h at
ch al len ging the co urt co st fo r an atto rne y pro tem co uld be rai se d fo r the firs t time on
ap pe al , h ol di ng:
Sin ce the fee s were no t imp os ed in op en co urt an d sh e wa s no t require d to fil e a moti on fo r ne w tria l, sh e ha s no t fo rfe ited t h e co mpl ai nt on ap pe al

. Lan ders v. Sta te , 402 S.W .3 d 252 , 255 (Tex

. Crim. App

. 201 3). In Lan ders, the co st bi ll

wa s a va ila bl e si x d ay s a fter the jud gmen t an d th is Co urt exp la in ed :
No n oti ce of th is d oc umen t wa s giv en to th e a pp ell an t or h er a ttorn ey an d no furth er pro ce ed in gs were he ld

. Con se quen tly, the ap pe lla nt wa s no t give n a n o p p o r t unity to ob jec t to the imp os itio n of the se co sts
. Sin ce sh e wa s no t give n the op po rtuni ty, the ab se nc e of an ob jec tio n is
no t fa tal to h er a pp ea l.
Lan ders, 402 S. W

. 3 d a t 2 5 5

. Th is Court wen t on to de cla re tha t La nd ers wa s no t require d to ob jec t in a motio n for new trial be ca use there wa s no no tice the co st bi ll

-8-

## ha d eve r be en cre ate d an d it wo uld “all ow a jud ge to de fa cto al ter the sta tutory time

fra me f or mo tio ns for ne w tria l.” Lan ders , 40 2 S. W .3 d a t 255

. Th e co st b ill in th es e ca se s wa s cre ate d on June 11, 201 4. The jud gmen t wa s

en tere d on Ma y 15 , 20 14. Almo st fo ur wee ks ha d p as se d. Thi s Co urt ha s held tha t
M r. Joh ns on wa s no t r equire d to fil e a moti on fo r ne w tria l in ord er to pre se rve hi s
ch al len ge. Th e Co urt of Ap pe al s er red in d eter min in g this iss ue wa s un pre se rve d.
P R A Y E R F O R 

## R E L IE F


## Fo r the rea so ns sta tes ab ov e, M r. J o hn so n pra ys tha t thi s Court gran t hi s
pe titio n fo r di sc retio na ry re vie w.

Res pe ctful ly s ubmi tted , A L E X AN D E R 

## B U N IN 

## Chi ef P ubli c De fen de r Ha rris Coun ty Te xa s Ja ni Ma sell

i W ood

________

__________

_____________ JANI J. M ASE LLI W OOD Ass ista nt P ubli c De fen de r Ha rris Coun ty, Tex as Jan i.M as ell i@p do .h ctx .n et TBN . 00 791 195 120 1 Fra nklin Stree t, 13 th F lo or Ho usto n, Tex as 770 02 Ph on e: (713 ) 368 -0 016 Fa x: (713 ) 368 -9 278
Attorn ey for App ell an t Will ia m Joh ns on

-9-

## C E RT IF IC A T E O F 

## S E R V IC E


## Purs uan t to Tex

. R. App

. P r o c . 9 .5 , thi s ce rtifi es tha t on Octo be r 26, 201 5, a

co py of the fo rego in g wa s ema ile d to Lis a M cM in n, Sta te Pro se cutin g Attorn ey , an d
the Ha rris Coun ty Dis trict Attorn ey ’s Offi ce thro ugh tex fil e. co m at the fo llo win g ad dr es s:

M eli ss a H erv ey Ass ista nt Di stri ct Atto rne y 120 1 Fra nklin Stree t, 6th Flo or Ho usto n, TX

770 02 He rve y_ M eli ss a @d ao .h ctx .n et
Lis a M cM in n Lis a. M cM in n@S PA. tex as .go v Ja ni Ma sell i W ood

__________________

______________

_ JANI J. M ASE LLI W OOD

-10-

## CERT IFICATE OF COM PLIANCE

Purs uan t to pro po se d Rule 9. 4(i)(3 ), und ers igne d co uns el ce rtifi es t h at thi s
pe titio n co mpl ies with the typ e- vo lu me limi tati on s of T E X



## . R. A P P



## . P R O C



## . 9. 4( I

## )(2)(D).
1. E x c l usiv e of the po rtio ns ex emp ted by T E X



## . R. A P P



## . P R O C



## . 9. 4 ( I 

## )(1), thi s
pe titio n c on tai ns 100 7 wo rd s p rin ted in a pro po rtio na lly sp ac ed typ efa ce . 2. Th is pe titio n is p r i n t e d i n a pro po rtio na lly sp ac ed , se rif typ efa ce usin g
Ga ram on d 14 po in t fo nt in tex t an d Ga ram on d 14 po in t fo nt in fo otn ote s pro duc ed by Core l W ord Per fec t so ftwa re.
3. Un de rsi gned co uns el und ers tan ds tha t a ma te r ia l mis rep res en tati on in

co mpl etin g thi s ce rtifi ca te, or circ umve nti on of the typ e- vo lume limi ts in Tex. R. Ap p.
Proc. 9. 4(j) , ma y res ult in the Court' s stri kin g thi s bri ef an d imp os in g sa nc tio ns aga in st
the pe rso n wh o s igne d i t.
Ja ni Ma sell i W ood

________

__________

__________ JANI J. M ASE LLI W OOD

-11-

## Ap pe nd ix A Opi ni on Johnson v. Sta te2015 WL 5025653

Only t he Westlaw citat ion is currently available.
NOTICE: T HIS OP INION HA S NO T BE EN RELEASED FOR PU BLIC

ATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL R ELEASED, I T IS SUBJECT T O

REVI SION O R WIT HDRAWAL.
Court o f Appeals of Texas, Hou ston (1 4th Dist.).
William Johnson, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee NO. 14–14–00475 –CR | Opini on filed Au gust 25, 2015

Sy nopsis Bac kg ro un d: Defendant w as convicted on gu ilty plea in the 18 4th District Court Harr is Coun ty , of agg ravated ro bb ery w ith dead ly

w eapo n. Defendant appe aled.

Hold ing s: T he Court of A pp eals, Kem T hom

pson Frost , C.J. , held that:

[1 ] trial c ourt d id not interfere w ith plea negotiations;

[2 ] a gg ravated ro bb ery w ith use or exh ibition of dead ly
w eapo n w as first- degree felony , not state-ja il felony ; and

[3 ] or al pr onouncem ent at plea he a r i ng that gu ilty plea w as not pursuant to plea bar gain , and therefore, that defendant had right to appe al, controlled over w ritten j udgm ent statin g that defendant w as convicted pursuant to plea bar gain and that he had no r ight to app eal.
A ff irm ed as m od ified.

West He adnotes ( 12 )

[1 ] Crim inal L aw

Representations, pr om ises, orco ercio n; plea bar gain ing T rial court's questions to defense counsel dire cted at w het he r State had m ade offer on charge for ro bb ery and clarification for reco rd that offer had not been a ccep ted, befor e accep ting defendant' s gu ilty p l e a , did not constitu te interference w ith plea neg otiatio ns; plea neg otiatio ns had alread y ended, and defendant had alread y rej e c ted offer, and trial court m ade no co m m ent su gg estingthat defendant shoul d reco nsi der or that State sh ould eng age in fu

rther neg otia t i ons. T ex. Crim

. P ro c. Code A nn . ar t. 2 6.1 3( a)( 2)

.

Cases th at cite this headnote

[2 ] Crim inal L aw

Representations, pr om ises, orco ercio n; plea bar gain ing
P lea bar gain s are a c r ucial aspect of the T exas j ust ice sy stem , and it is im pr op er for a trial j udge to par ticipate or beco m e otherw ise inv olved in the pr ocess b y

w hich plea ba rgains are form ed.

Cases th at cite this headnote

[3 ] Crim inal L aw

Representations, pr om ises, orco ercio n; plea bar gain ing
P lea b argainin g is the pr ocess w here a defendant
w ho is accused of a par ticular crim inal offen se, and his attor ney , if he has one, and the pr osecutor enter into an agreem ent w hich pr ovides that the trial on that p articular charge not occur or tha t it
w il l b e dispo sed of pursuant to the agreem ent betw een the par ties, subjec t to the app ro val of the trial j udge.

Cases th at cite this headnote

[4 ] Crim inal L aw

CostsDefendant failed to preser ve for review on dire ct app eal claim that statutor y com pr ehens ive rehabilitatio n fee assess ed as par t of s entence for agg ravated ro bb ery

w ith dead ly w eapo n violated separ ation of po w ers beca use fee statut e req uired courts to collect fu

nds that w ere un

related to court fu nctions and rehabilitatio n w as w ithin pr ovince of executiv e br anch, w

here he did not raise claim at trial. T ex. Const. art. 2, § 1 ; T ex. Loc. Gov' t Code A nn . § 13 3.1 02 ; T ex. R. App. P . 3 3.1 (a)

.

Cases th at cite this headnote

[5 ] Crim inal L aw

Constit utional questions
An app ellant is req uired to pr eserve err or i n t he trial court on a facial or as-applied c hallen ge to t he constitu

tionality of the statut e, beca use his right to a constitutional challeng e of the statut e is a right that can be forfeited if it is not raised in the trial co urt. T ex. R. App. P . 3 3.1 (a)

.

Cases th at cite this headnote

[6 ] Crim inal L aw

Constit utional questions
T he req uirem ent that app ellant pr eserve err or in the trial court on constitu

tional challeng es app lies to chal l e ng e s b r o ug ht un d e r t he T e xa s Constit ution. T ex. R. App. P . 3 3.1 (a)

.

Cases th at cite this headnote

[7 ] Robb ery

Degrees; ar m ed ro bb ery
A gg ravated ro bb er y w ith use or exh ibition of dead ly w eapo n w as firs t -degree felony , not state-jail felony

. T ex. P enal Code A nn . § 29 .03

.

Cases th at cite this headnote

[8 ] Crim inal L aw

Contradictio n of, or co nf

lict in, reco rd Crim inal L aw P lea o f Gui lty

or Nolo Contendere Oral pr onouncem ent at hearing on gu ilty plea to agg ravated ro bb ery w ith dead ly w eapo n that plea
w as not pursuant to plea bar ga i n, and therefore, that defendant had right to app eal, contro lled over w ritten j udgm ent o f se nten ce statin g that defendant w as convicted pursuant to plea bar gain and that he had no r ight to app eal.

Cases th at cite this headnote

[9 ] Senten cingand P un ishm ent

P resence o f Defen dant Senten cingand P un ishm ent Necessity of w riting
A def endant' s senten ce m

ust be pr onounced or ally in hi s pre sence.

Cases th at cite this headnote

[1 0] Crim inal L aw

Requisites and Suff

iciency of J udgm ent Senten cingand P un ishm ent Necessity of w riting
T he j udgm ent, inclu ding the senten ce assess ed, is the w ritten decla ratio n and e m bo dim ent of the or al pr onouncem ent of senten ce.

Cases th at cite this headnote

[1 1] Senten cingand P un ishm ent

Oral a nd w

ritten pr onouncem ents
When there is a conflict b e tw een the or al pr onouncem ent of senten ce and the se nt e nce in the w ritten j udgm ent, the or al pr on o un cem ent contro ls.

Cases th at cite this headnote

[1 2] Crim inal L aw

Contradictio n of, or co nf

lict in, reco rdIf the trial court's or al pr onouncem ent of w heth er a d efen dant has the righ

t to app eal co nf

licts w ith its w ritten j udgm ent, the or al pr onou ncement contro ls.

Cases th at cite this headnote

On A pp eal from the 18 4th Distr i ct Court Harr is County , T exas, T rial Court Cause No. 13 95 86 7
A ttorney s and Law

Firm s
Devon Anderson , Me lissa Hervey , for T he State of T exas.
Ja ni J. Maselli W oo d, for W illiam J ohnson. P anel consists of Ch ief Justice Frost and Justices Bo y ce and McCally

.

OP INIO N

Kem T hom pson Fro st , Chief

J ust ice

* 1 Ap p ellant William Jo hn son challeng es his conviction for agg ravated ro bb ery w ith a dead ly w eapo n and the trial court's assess m ent of court co st s agains t him

. A pp ellant asserts the trial court v iolated h is right to a neutral j udge by ques tioning him abo ut the plea offer he rej ected

. A pp ellant also challeng es T exas Local Governm ent Code section 13 3.1 02 as vio l a t i ng t he T exas Constit

ution. A nd, bo th the State and app ellant claim th e judgm ent contains err or s. We m od ify th e judgm ent to corr ect erro rs, but w e o verrule ap pellant' s other issues and aff irm the j udgm ent as m od ified.

I. Factual and P ro cedural Bac kg ro un d
A fter being charged w ith agg ravated ro bb ery usi ng or exh ibiting a dead ly w eapo n, a p pellant plead ed “ gu ilty ”
w ithout a n y agreed reco m

m endation. Befor e app ellant entered his plea , t he trial court questioned him regard ing his com petency and asked if he un der stood the im pact of his action. In par ticular, the trial court queried w heth er app ellant un der stood the plea bar gain o ff ered by the State and the po tential range of punis hm e nt the trial court could im po se. T he trial court sta t e d it w ould deter m ine the senten ce after review ing a pr e-sen

tence inv estigation rep or t considering evidence. A fter articulating a n un der standing of the consequences of his plea , appellant pleade d “ gu ilty ,” and the tria l c ourt accep ted the plea. T he trial court later senten ced app ellant to eight y ears' confin em ent and assess ed court costs.

II. An aly sis

A . Alleg ed Interference in P lea Negotiatio ns [1 ] A pp ellant asserts the trial court vio l a t e d his right to hav e his punis hm ent assess ed by an im par tial j udge beca use the trial court beca m e biased through interference in plea neg otiatio ns. A ccor ding to app ellant, the interference caused the trial court to beco m e an advoca te for the plea agreem ent. A pp ellant argues that if the trial court advoca tes for a plea agreem ent, the trial court' s advoca cy

can giv e the court “ a personal s take” in the agreem ent. A

pp ellant sug gests that by interferin g, the trial court beca m e biased and could not be neutral and detac hed in assess ing punis hm e nt. A pp ellant also asserts a trial court's interference in plea negotiations is coer cive.

[2 ] [3 ] We pr esum e, w ithout decid ing , app ellant' s argum ent is p reserved for app ellate review

. P lea bar gain s are a crucia l aspect of the T exas j ust ice sy stem and it is im pr op er for a trial j udge to par ticipate o r beco m e otherw ise inv olved in the pr ocess by w

hich pl e a b a r gains are form ed. See Moo re v. St a te, 29 5 S.W. 3d 32 9, 33 1—3 2 (T ex.Crim .App.2 00 9) ; Ex pa rte Sh uflin, 52 8 S.W. 2d 61 0, 61 7 (T ex.Crim.A pp .19 75 ). P lea b argainin g is

the pr ocess w

here a defendant w

ho is accused o f a par ticular crim inal offen se, and hi s attorney , if he has one, and the pr osecutor enter into an agreem ent w hich pr ovides that the trial on that par ticular ch arge n ot occur or that it w ill be dispo sed of p ur suant to the agreem ent betw een the par ties, subjec t to the app ro val of the trial j udge.
Perkins v. Court of App eals for Third Su preme J u d i c ial Dist. of Tex., 73 8 S.W. 2d 27 6, 28 2 (T ex.Crim .App.1 98 7)

.

* 2 T he reco rd reveals that befor e app ellant p l e d

“ gu ilty ,” the tr i al court questioned app ellant regard ingplea negotiations: [T he Court]: Did I un der stand ther e is no plea bar gain ? [Appellant' s counsel]: T hat' s cor rect, Your Ho nor.

[T he Court]: I do recall t he r e w as som e discussi on abo ut w heth er or not the State m ight m ake him an offer on ro bb ery . Did they ever d o that?[Appel l a nt's counsel]: We talked abo ut it, Your

Honor , but, as I explained to the pr osecution earlier , is that based on the facts and the natu re and his inv olvem ent, I tho ug ht deferr ed w ould hav e been
m ost ap pr op riate thingto do . An d so

—
[ T he Court]: Rig ht. I j ust w ant the reco rd to reflect that he tu rned that d ow

n. Did he turn that do w

n?

[Appellant' s counsel]: He d id. Yes, Yo ur Honor

.
[T he Court]: Is that righ t , t hey offered y ou som ethin g on ro bb ery ? Did y ou giv e him a num ber of y ears o n rob ber y ? Did y ou get that—

[Appellant' s counsel]: T w o years, Your H onor
.
[T he Court]: T w o years?

[Appellant' s counsel]: Did I m isrepr esent?

[P ro secutor]: No, I believe it w as—I believe w hen y ou talked w ith the chief , the discussi on w as tw o y ears.

[ T he Court]: Ok[ay ]. On a red uced charge of ro bb ery
. A m I cor re c t i n thin kin g y ou do not w ant that? Is that ri gh t ? I j ust w ant the reco rd to reflect that. Is that right?

[Appellant]: Yes, m a'am

.
[T he Court]: Ok[ay ]. T here is no p lea b argain.

A pp ellant argues that the trial c ourt's specific questions regard ing the leng th of t i m e the State offered as a reco m

m end e d senten ce constitu ted interference in plea neg otiatio ns. T he reco rd reveals that a t the tim e of the tr ial co ur t 's questionin g, plea neg otiatio ns alread y had e n de d a nd app ellant alread y had rej ected the plea bar gain

. T he trial court did not sug gest that app ellant shoul d reco nsi der his rej ecti on and attem

pt to eng age the State in fu r ther plea neg otiatio ns. Rath er, the tr ial court sim ply clarified for the reco rd that app ellant w as aw are of the specifics of the plea bar gain offered by the State and that he had turned i t d o wn. See T ex. Code Crim

. P ro c. A nn
. art. 26 .13 (a) (2 ) (W est, Westlaw through 20 13 3d C.S.) (re quiring trial- court inquiry into the existen ce of a plea bar gain agreem ent befor e

accep ting a “ gu ilty ” plea). T he trial court explained that the pur p o se of the query w as to ensu re the
r e c o r d r e f

l e c t e d a p p e l l a n t u n d e r s t o o d t h e c onsequences of plead ing “ gu ilty ” w ithout a pl e a bar gain

.

T he reco rd sh o w s t hat the trial court w as not inv olved in plea neg otiatio ns and, therefore, did not develop any sort of per sonal stake in the neg otiatio ns that w ould aff

ect the trial court's im

par tiality

. See G a r c i a v
. S t a t e , 7 5 S

. W

. 3 d 4 9 3 , 4 9 9 (T ex.A pp .—San A ntonio 20 02 , pet. ref' d) (noting that leng thy adm onishm ents by the trial court do not m ean that the trial cou r t i s inv olved in plea neg otiatio ns). T he trial court did not interfere in plea neg otiatio ns. See Perkins, 73 8 S.W. 2d at 28 2; Garcia , 75 S.W. 3d at 49 9. Bec ause the t r i a l court did not interfere in plea neg otiatio ns, app ellant' s argum ents are w ithout m erit. See id. A ccor dingly , app ellant' s first is sue is overruled.

B. Com pr ehens ive Reh abilitatio n Fee [4 ] Section 13 3.1 02 of the T exas Local Governm ent Co de governs consolida ted fees on conviction. See T ex. Loc. Gov' t Code A nn
. § 13 3.1 02 (W e st , Westlaw through 20 13 3d C.S.). In his second issu e, app ellant a sserts the court co sts asses sed un der this statut e violate the T exas Constit utio n. T he bill of costs w as issu ed the sam e day as t he j ud gm ent. A pp ellant did not challenge th e assessm ent of costs in t he t r i a l court through a m otio n for new trial or any other veh icle.

* 3 On app eal, app ellant asserts section 13 3.1 02 violates the T exas Constit ution beca use it auth or izes the trial court to collect, as court costs, m oney that is used for com

pr ehens ive rehabilitatio n. Id

. § 13 3.0 12 (e) (6 ). A

pp ellant arg ues that usi ng court costs to fu

nd rehabilitatio n eff

or ts violates the separ ation of po w ers beca use it req uires the courts to collect fu nds that are un

related to court fu nctions. See T ex. Const. art. I I, § 1 (W est, W estlaw th ro ug h 20 13 3d C.S.). A

pp ella nt asserts rehabilitatio n is
w ithin the pr ovince of the executiv e b ranch.

[5 ] [6 ] T o p revail on ap peal, ap pellant w as req uired to pr eserve err or in the trial court on his facial challeng e to the constitutionality of the statut e, beca use his right to a facial challeng e of the statut e is a right that can be forfeited if it is not raised in the trial court. See T ex. R. A pp
. P

. 33 .1( a) ; Kar enev v. Sta te, 28 1 S.W. 3d 42 8, 43 4 (T ex.Crim .App.2 00 9)

. T o the extent app ellant' s issu e can be construed as an as-applied challeng e, a p p ellant w as sim ilarly req uired to raise the challeng e in the trial court. SeeJoh nso n v. State , --- S.W .3d ---- (20 15)

C u r r y v
. S t a t e , 9 1 0 S

. W

. 2 d 4 9 0 , 4 9 6 ( T e x
. C r i m.Ap p
. 1 9 9 5 )

. T he r e q ui r e men t t ha t app ellant pr eserve err or in the trial court on constitutional challeng es app li es to challeng es br ought un der the T exas Constit ution. See Heidelb erg v. Sta te, 14 4 S.W. 3d 53 5, 53 7– 38 (T ex.Crim .App.2 00 4) ; Curry, 91 0 S. W. 2dat 4 96

.

A pp ellant relies on the C ourt of Crim inal A pp eals' s holdings in J

o h n so n v. Sta te and Carden as v. Sta te in assertinghe w as not required to preserve erro r in the trial court regard ing his cons tituti onal challeng e to the court costs assess ed agains t him

. See Joh nson v. Sta te, 42 3 S.W. 3d 38 5 (T e x.Crim .App.2 01 4) ; C a r d e n a s v
. S t a t e , 4 2 3 S

. W

. 3 d 3 9 6 (T ex.Crim .A

pp .2 01 4)

. In J

oh ns on a n d Carden as, the Court of Crim inal A

pp eals ad d r e ssed ins tances in
w hich defendants sought review of court costs assess ed agains t them after the j udgm ent of conviction w as entered on t he grounds that the reco rd did not suppo rt any ba sis f orim po sin g court costs agains t the defendants. See Joh n so n, 42 3 S.W. 3d at 38 8; Ca rd ena s, 42 3 S.W. 3d at 39 8. N o t ing that the review w as sim ilar t o a legal- suf ficien cy review , and that m ost defe nd ants w ould not hav e an op po rtunit y to ob j ect to baseless court costs in the trial c o ur t , the Court of Crim inal A pp eals held in Joh nson that Jo hn son w as not req uired to ob

j ect at trial to raise a claim challeng ing the bases of assessed co sts on app eal. See Joh nson , 4 2 3 S.W. 3d at 39 0– 91

. In Carden as, the Court o f Crim inal A

pp eals rej ected Cardenas's argum ent that supplem entin g the clerk' s reco rd w ith a bill of costs violated his right to due pr ocess of law , in par t, beca use Cardenas w as able to challeng e the basis of the costs for the first tim e on app eal. Carden as, 42 3 S.W. 3d at 39 9. In neith e r o f t hese cases do es the hig h court hold t hat a defendant w ho had an op po rtunit

y to p r e sent a challeng e to the constitutionality

of a statut e im

po sin g court costs in the trial court m ay raise his constitutional challeng e for the first tim e on app eal. Bec ause neith er Joh nson nor Carden as pr ovides app ellant w ith an excep tion to the req uirem ent that he pr ese r ve his facial constitutio nal challeng e in the trial court, w e conclude that app ellant failed to p r eserve err or for app ellate review

. See Karenev, 28 1 S.W. 3d at 43 4; Heidelb erg, 14 4 S.W. 3d at 53 7– 38 ; Curry, 9 10 S.W. 2d at 49 6. And, beca use app ellant failed to pr eserve err or , his second issue is overruled. Err or s in th e J udgm ent
In his third issu e, app ellant asserts that the j udgm ent contains tw o err or s. T he State conced es bo th err or s.

1. Lev el of Offen se

* 4 [7 ] A pp ellant pled “ gu ilty ” to agg ravated ro bb ery w ith the use or exh ibition of a dead ly w eapo n, a first- degree felony

. See T e x. P enal Code A nn
. § 29 .03 (W est, Westlaw thro ug h 20 13 3d C.S.). T he adm onishm ents app ellant sig ned in conj un ction w ith his “ gu ilty ” plea reflect that the offen se is a first- degree felony . The j udgm ent reflects app ellant
w as convicted o f th e o ff

ense o f agg ravated ro bb ery w ith a dead ly w eapo n, but it list s the degree of the offen se as a state-jail felony

. A pp ellant req uests that
w e reform the j udgm e nt to reflect conviction for a first- degree felony rather than a state-jail felony

. T he State agrees that w e should grant this relief.

T he trial court err ed in render ing j udgm ent agains t app ellant for a state-jail felony

. We therefore m od ify the j udgm ent to reflect app ell a nt's conviction for a first- degree felony

. See French v. Sta te, 83 0 S.W. 2d 60 7, 60 9 (T ex.Crim .App.1 99 2) ; Musgrov e v. Sta te, 42 5 S.W. 3d 60 1, 61 2 (T ex.A pp .—Houston [1 4th Dist.] 20 14 , pet. ref' d) ( mo dify ing j udgm ent to reflect co rre ct offens e level).

2. Rig ht to Appeal [8 ] A pp ellant asserts t ha t the trial court err ed in its
w ritten j udgm ent by statin g that he had no r i gh t to app eal. T he w

ritten j udgm ent say s app ellant w as convicted pursuant to a plea bar gain and has no right to app eal

. At t he hearing on app ellant' s gu ilty plea, how ever, the trial court stated that beca use there w as no plea bar gain , app ella nt had the right to app eal. T he reco rd reflects there w as no plea bar gain in this case.

[ 9 ] [1 0] [1 1] [1 2] A defendant' s senten ce m ust b e pr onounced or ally in his pr esence. Taylo r v. Sta te , 13 1 S.W. 3d 49 7, 50 0 (T e x. Crim .App.2 00 4)

. T he j udgm ent, inclu ding the se nt e nce assess ed, is the
w ritten decla ratio n and em bo dim ent of that o ral pr onouncem ent. Id

. When there is a conflict betw een
© 2015 T hom son Reuters. No claim to origi nal U.S . Governm ent W ork s. 17 

### -17-Joh nso n v. State , --- S.W .3d ---- (20 15)

the or al pr onouncem ent of senten ce and the senten ce in the w ritten j udgm ent, t he or al pr onouncem ent contro ls. Id

. Sim ilarly , if the trial court's or al pr onouncem ent of w

heth er a defendant has the right to app eal conflicts w ith its w ritten j udgm ent, the or al pr onouncem ent contro ls. Grice v. Sta te, 16 2 S.W. 3d 64 1, 64 4– 45 (T ex.A

pp .—Houston [1 4t

h D i s t .] 20 05 , pet. ref' d)

.

T he trial court's special fin ding that app ellant do es not hav e the right to app eal conflicts w ith the j udge' s or al pr onouncem ent t ha t app ellant had the right to app eal. Bec ause the or al pr onouncem ent is inconsis tent w ith t he w

ritten j udgm ent, w e m od ify t he w r i t t e n j ud gme nt t o r e f l e c t t he o r a l pr onouncem ent that app ellant has the right to app eal. See id.

III . Conclusion
A pp ellant do es not pr evail on his first issu e. T he trial court did no t vio late app ellant' s right to a neutral j ud ge by its actions in connection w ith the p l e a neg otiatio ns beca use the trial court did not interfere in the neg otiatio ns. Nor do es app ellant pr evail on the constitutional challeng e pr esented in his second issu e. A pp ellant did not pr eserv e err or in the trial court on his claim that secti o n 13 3.1 02 violates the T exas Constit

ution. A pp ellant, how ever, is entitled to relief on his t hi r d issu e beca use the j udgm ent contains err or s. T he j udgm ent incorre ctly reflects app ellant w as convicted of a state-jail felony and that app ellant has no r i gh t o f app eal. We m od ify the j udgm ent to reflec t app ellant' s conviction for a first- degree felony

and to ref

lect appellant's rig ht to app eal. We aff

irm the trial co ur t' s j udgm ent as m od ified.

A ll Citations

-- - S.W.3 d --- -, 20 15 W L 502 56 53

End of Do cum ent © 20 15 Thomson R euters. No clai m t o origin al U.S. Go ver nm ent Wo rks.

© 2015 T hom son Reuters. No claim to origi nal U.S . Governm ent W ork s. 18 

### -18-