Court Opinion

ID: 9910237
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 12:10:52.98389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:51:39.835005
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                         TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                No. 10-22-00366-CR

TODD ALLEN GUEDEA,
                                                          Appellant
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                                          Appellee

                          From the 413th District Court
                             Johnson County, Texas
                         Trial Court No. DC-F202200302

                         DISSENTING OPINION

      Guedea’s second issue in this appeal is: “The Court Erred In Assessing Costs To

Indigent Appellant Without Conducting A Hearing.” The argument is based in part

upon article 42.15(a-1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The State concedes the issue,

concluding its discussion with, “Appellant’s Issue Number Two should be granted and

the order for legal-fees, court costs, and fine reimbursement be deleted from the

judgment.” The trial court did not conduct the required hearing.

      The Court’s opinion fails to address the issue as presented by Guedea. The Court
only addresses some of the amounts for individual costs. Guedea’s issue is about the

failure to hold the statutorily required hearing, not individual costs. If Guedea’s issue

has merit, it impacts all of the charges and is not limited to the ones the Court selected to

address in its opinion. 1

        I dissent.

                                                  TOM GRAY
                                                  Chief Justice

Dissenting opinion delivered and filed December 14, 2023

1
  In Carnley, I noted that I had not seen any trial court comply with article 42.15(a-1) but would await the
time until the issue was properly presented to address the issue. Carnley v. State, No. 10-21-00104-CR, 2023
Tex. App. LEXIS 8896, at *44-45 (Tex. App.—Waco Nov. 30, 2023, no pet. h.) (publish) (Gray, C.J.,
dissenting). This appears to be the first opinion to issue in an appeal in which the lack of the required
hearing on the ability to pay has been properly raised. Unfortunately, because the issue as raised is not
addressed, we will have to continue to wait for direction regarding the trial court’s duty to conduct a post-
sentencing hearing on the record regarding the defendant’s ability to pay the fines, fees, and court costs
that would otherwise be assessed in the judgment and whether some or all of the amount will not be
assessed.

Guedea v. State                                                                                       Page 2