Court Opinion

ID: 4061471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 20:07:32.777721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:18.321966
License: Public Domain

ACCEPTED
                                                                              06-15-00032-CR
                                                                   SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                         TEXARKANA, TEXAS
                                                                          7/6/2015 2:10:11 PM
                                                                             DEBBIE AUTREY
                                                                                       CLERK

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
          SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT TEXARKANA
                                                          FILED IN
                                                   6th COURT OF APPEALS
                                                     TEXARKANA, TEXAS
STATE OF TEXAS,             §                      7/6/2015 2:10:11 PM
   APPELLEE                 §                          DEBBIE AUTREY
                                                           Clerk
                            §                  06-15-00032-CR
    v.                      §           No. 06-14-00032-CR
                            §
DEVON RAY DAVIS             §
   APPELLANT                §

                     STATE'S REPLY BRIEF

                 FROM THE 196TH DISTRICT COURT
                      HUNT COUNTY, TEXAS
                   TRIAL CAUSE NUMBER 22,886
         THE HONORABLE JOE M. LEONARD, JUDGE PRESIDING

                                NOBLE DAN WALKER, JR.
                                District Attorney
                                Hunt County, Texas

                                G. CALVIN GROGAN V
                                Assistant District Attorney
                                P. 0. Box 441
                                4th Floor Hunt County Courthouse
                                Greenville, TX 75403
                                (903) 408-4180
                                FAX (903) 408-4296
                                State Bar No. 24050695
                                     TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... 3

STATEMENT OF CASE .......................................................................................... 5

ISSUES
PRESENTED ..................................................................................... 5

SUMMARY OF STATE'S ARGUMENT ............................................................... 5

APPELLANT'S WRITTEN JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REFORMED ............... 5

     STANDARD OF
     REVIEW ......................................................................................... 5

     ATTORNEY FEES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADDED TO
     JUDGMENT ........................................................................................................ 6

     IMPOSITION OF $122 IN URINALYSIS FEES ALLOWED ......................... 7

PRAYER .................................................................................................................... 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................. 8

                                                                                                                 2
                                    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Texas Cases
Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) ....................... 6
Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) ..................................... 5
Ex Parte Madding, 70 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) ................................. 5
McPherson v. State, No. 06-13-00081-CR *7 Fn10 (Tex. App.- Texarkana
2013) ....................................................................................................................... 7
Owen v. State, 352 S.W.3d 542, 546 (Tex. App.- Amarillo 2011, no pet. ........... 7
Will. v. State, 332 S.W.3d 694, 700 (Tex. App.- Amarillo 2011, pet.
denied) .................................................................................................................... 7

Texas Statues
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ART. 102.012(b)1 (Vernon 2012) .................................... 7

                                                                                                                     3
              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
           SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT TEXARKANA

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                       §
   APPELLEE                               §
                                          §
      v.                                  §             No. 06-14-00032-CR
                                          §
DEVON RAY DAVIS                           §
   APPELLANT                              §

                             STATE'S REPLY BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

       NOW COMES the State of Texas, Appellant, in this direct appeal
from Cause No. 22,886 in the 196th Judicial District Court in and for Hunt
County, Texas, Honorable Joe M. Leonard, Presiding, now before the Sixth
District Court of Appeals, and respectfully submits this its brief to the Sixth
District Court of Appeal~.

                                                                                  4
                 STATEMENT OF CASE AND FACTS

The State agrees with both the Appellant's Statement of Case and Statement

of Facts.

                           ISSUE PRESENTED

Issue 1. Should the Appellant's Written Judgment Be Reformed to

Reflect the Trial Court's Oral Pronouncement of Sentence?

                   S~YOFTHEARGUMENT

1. Yes and No. The Trial Court should not have imposed court-appointed

   attorney fees after failing to make such an oral pronouncement during

   sentencing, but imposition of Urinalysis Fees is a legislatively mandated

   court cost that does not have to be included in the oral pronouncement of

   sentence.

                               ARGUMENT

1. Appellant's Written Judgment Should Not have Included $2,337.00

   in Court-Appointed Attorney Fees

                                                                               5
      a. Standard of Review

      "A trial court's pronouncement of sentence is oral, while the

judgment, including the sentence assessed, is merely the written declaration

and embodiment of that oral pronouncement." Ex Parte Madding, 70
S.W.3d 131, 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Ifthe oral pronouncement of

sentence and written judgments vary, the oral pronouncement controls.

Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).

      b. $2,122 Court-Appointed Attorney Fees

      The State agrees with Appellant that the written judgment conflicts

with the Trial Court's oral pronouncement of sentence in regards to

imposing court-appointed attorney fees.

      c. Appellant Still Owes $122.00 in Urinalysis Fees

      "Because legislatively mandated fees and costs are not punitive in

nature, they need not be included in the oral pronouncement of sentence to

be validly imposed on a convicted defendant." Armstrong v. State, 340
S.W.3d 759, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). "Payment of a urinalysis fee is

not included within Chapter 12 ofthe Texas Penal Code entitled

                                                                               6
Punishments and does not alter the range of punishment." McPherson v.

State, No. 06-13-00081-CR *7 Fn10 (Tex. App.- Texarkana 2013). "A

defendant's ability to pay is not relevant to legislatively mandated court

costs, and a trial court may order the defendant to pay or reimburse a

community supervision and corrections department for any other expense

that is ... .incurred as a result of the defendant's participation in the pretrial

intervention program." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ART. 102.012(b)1) (Vernon

2012); Owen v. State, 352 S.W.3d 542, 546 (Tex. App.- Amarillo 2011, no

pet.); Williams v. State, 332 S.W.3d 694, 700 (Tex. App.- Amarillo 2011,

pet. denied).

       Appellant should still be required to pay the $122 in Urinalysis fees.

                                    PRAYER

       The State prays that the Appellant's Judgment be reformed to delete

the imposition of court appointed attorney fees.

                                                  Respectfully submitted,

                                                 NOBLE DAN WALKER, JR.
                                                 District Attorney
                                                 Hunt County, Texas
                                                     ~\4\::, _;;., lr.>'-
                                                     ;/-
                                                     ,     :./1.:.; }"""
                                                           1 _...        ~ _J
                                                                                ~J'\
                                                                                       ~.?""'rr''ti~ ~r,.,   ..
                                                                                                                  /   /
                                                 G cALVIN GROGAN V

                                                                                                                          7
                                              Assistant District Attorney
                                              P. 0. Box 441
                                              4th Floor, Hunt County

                                              Courthouse
                                              Greenville, TX 75403
                                              State Bar No. 24050695
                                              (903) 408-4180
                                              FAX (903) 408-4296

     CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH T.R.A.P. 9.4(i)(3)

       Relying on Microsoft Word's word count feature used to create the
State's Reply Brief, I certify that the number of words contained in this brief
is 870 and the typeface used is 14Font.

                                                I            (/

                                      G CALVIN GROGAN V
                                      Assistant District Attorney

                      CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

      A true copy of the State's brief has been mailed via first-class mail to
Katherine Ferguson, Appellee's attorney of record, today, July 6, 2015,
pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

                                         G CALVIN GROGAN V
                                         Assistant District Attorney

                                                                              8