Court Opinion

ID: 9946733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 12:12:06.872984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:18.158314
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                          TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                 No. 10-21-00158-CR

HOLLIS LANE WILLINGHAM,
                                                             Appellant
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                                             Appellee

                           From the 369th District Court
                               Leon County, Texas
                            Trial Court No. 19-0032CR

                                      DISSENT

       Given that the law was just recently clarified by an opinion from the Texas Court

of Criminal Appeals in Nicholson v. State, No. PD-0963-19, 2024 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 23

(Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 17, 2024) (publish), a case that was pending on a petition for

discretionary review for just over four years, maybe in the interest of justice, we should

allow the parties the opportunity to rebrief the issues. But that is not why I write.

       I write because of issue three—the review of a judgment nunc pro tunc which

modified the assessment of court costs.
        I write because we have no jurisdiction of the issue the Court purports to address

in issue three. The Court abated this appeal. I dissented. Willingham v. State, No. 10-21-

00158-CR (Tex. App.—Waco Oct. 19, 2022, order) (not designated for publication). See

Welch v. State, 668 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. App.—Waco 2022, order) (Gray, C.J., dissenting) 1 As

a result of the abatement order, the trial court rendered and signed a nunc pro tunc

judgment. No notice of appeal or certification of the right to appeal the nunc pro tunc

judgment appear in the clerk’s record. Accordingly, we have no authority or jurisdiction

to review the changes in the judgment resulting from the Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment. See

Carnley v. State, No. 10-21-00104-CR, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 8896, *4-46 (Tex. App.—Waco

Nov. 30, 2023, no pet.) (publish) (Gray, C.J., dissenting).

        I write for other reasons as well:

        As to whether a transfer to TDCJ upon conviction is a release as determined by the

Court, I lost that battle and as best as I can determine, it is an issue that is no longer

pending before the Court of Criminal Appeals. Thus, I am bound by this Court’s

precedent. See Briceno v. State, 675 S.W.3d 87 (Tex. App.—Waco 2023, no pet.) (majority

and dissenting opinions).

        As to whether the appropriate fees to be charged are those statutory court costs as

of the day of the offense or as of the date of the conviction, I also lost that battle at this

Court. A petition for discretionary review is pending at the Court of Criminal Appeals,

so there is no binding precedent for me to follow. See Bradshaw v. State, 675 S.W.3d 78

1
 As the dissent to the abatement order points out, the judgment from which this appeal was taken did not
assess any costs.

Willingham v. State                                                                              Page 2
(Tex. App.—Waco 2023, pet. granted) (majority and dissenting opinions).

       As to whether we have the authority or jurisdiction to review the amounts as

modified in the Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment, that issue has also not been resolved by the

Court of Criminal Appeals. See Carnley v. State, No. 10-21-00104-CR, 2023 Tex. App.

LEXIS 8896 (Tex. App.—Waco Nov. 30, 2023, no pet.) (publish).

       Thus, for the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent to the Court’s opinion and

judgment.

                                         TOM GRAY
                                         Chief Justice

Dissent delivered and filed February 29, 2024

Willingham v. State                                                                Page 3