Court Opinion

ID: 9400019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-07 06:09:34.83782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:41.602315
License: Public Domain

Modified and Affirmed and Opinion Filed May 31, 2023

                                       In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-22-00186-CR

                   DANNY ARAGONMARQUEZ, Appellant
                                 V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court
                             Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. F-1812099-U

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before Justices Nowell, Goldstein, and Breedlove
                           Opinion by Justice Goldstein
      Danny Aragonmarquez appeals his murder conviction. A jury convicted

appellant and sentenced him to thirty years’ confinement. In three issues, appellant

asserts the judgment should be modified to reflect the amount of costs authorized to

be assessed against him, reflect that appellant pled not guilty to the charged offense,

and accurately reflect the penal code section for the offense. As modified, we affirm

the trial court’s judgment.

      Appellant was charged by indictment with murder pursuant to penal code

section 19.02(b). At trial in February 2020, appellant pled not guilty to the charges
alleged in the indictment. Following trial, the jury found appellant guilty of murder

“as charged in the indictment.” The bill of cost shows appellant was assessed $340

itemized as follows:

      CLERK’S FEE                              40.00
      JURY FEE                                 1.00

      CCDC TECHNOLOGY FUND                     4.00

      COURT HOUSE SEC FEE                      10.00

      CONS STATE FEES                          185.00
      COUNTY RECORDS MGT                       25.00

      DNA FEE 2                                50.00
      SPECIALTY COURT                          25.00
This appeal followed.

      In his first issue, appellant asks us to modify the judgment to reflect the

amount of costs authorized to be assessed against him. Specifically, appellant asks

that the $1 jury fee and $25 specialty court fee should be deleted, the amount of the

courthouse security fee should be reduced by $5, the amount of costs assessed on

conviction of a felony should be reduced by $52, resulting in a total reduction in

costs of $83.

      Section 134.101 of the local government code imposes a $105 court cost on

felony convictions,1 which is allocated to six different funds and accounts: (1) the

clerk of the court account; (2) the county records management and preservation fund;

(3) the county jury fund; (4) the courthouse security fund; (5) the county and district

                                         –2–
court technology fund; and (6) the county specialty court account. TEX. LOC. GOV’T

CODE ANN. § 134.101; Shuler v. State, 650 S.W.3d 683, 687 (Tex. App.—Dallas

2022, no pet.). The statute became effective on January 1, 2020, and applies only to

offenses committed on or after that date.1

       The State agrees that the reduction in fees appellant requests should be granted

because the underlying offense occurred in 2018, and the statutes permitting the

higher fees assessed did not become effective until January 1, 2020. See, e.g.,

Krenzer v. State, No. 05-21-00444-CR, 2022 WL 17423464, at *8 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Dec. 6, 2022, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (deleting $1 jury fee

and $25 specialty court fee, reducing courthouse security fee from $10 to $5, and

reducing consolidated fee on conviction from $185 to $1332 in case where offense

occurred prior to January 1, 2020). This Court has the power to correct and reform

the judgment of the court below to make the record speak the truth when it has the

necessary data and information to do so, or make any appropriate order as the law

and the nature of the case may require. Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d). Accordingly, we sustain appellant’s first issue and

modify the judgment in this case to reduce the costs by $83 for a new total of $257

by deleting the $1 jury fee and $25 specialty court fee, reducing the courthouse

   1
     See Act of May 23, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., ch. 1352, (S.B. 346) §§ 1.05, 5.01, 5.04, 2019 Tex. Gen.
Laws 3981, 3984–85, 4035 (codified at TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 134.101).
   2
    See Act of May 23, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., ch. 1352, (S.B. 346) § 1.03 (current version at TEX. LOC.
GOV’T CODE ANN. § 133.102(a)(1))
                                                 –3–
security fee from $10 to $5, and reducing the consolidated fee on conviction from

$185 to $133.

      In his second and third issues, appellant argues the judgment should be further

modified to reflect that he pled “not guilty” to the charged offense and that the penal

code sections for the offense for which he was convicted are sections 19.02(b)(1)

and (2). Again, the State agrees, and the record supports the correction of the

judgment to show appellant pled “not guilty” and to state the correct section of the

penal code. See id. We sustain appellant’s second and third issues and modify the

judgment to state that appellant pled “not guilty” and to correctly identify the

applicable section of the penal code as sections 19.02(b)(1) and (2).

      As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                            /Bonnie Lee Goldstein//
220186f.u05                                 BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN
Do Not Publish                              JUSTICE
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

                                         –4–
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

DANNY ARAGONMARQUEZ,                         On Appeal from the 291st Judicial
Appellant                                    District Court, Dallas County, Texas
                                             Trial Court Cause No. F-1812099-U.
No. 05-22-00186-CR          V.               Opinion delivered by Justice
                                             Goldstein. Justices Nowell and
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Breedlove participating.

   Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED as follows:
   We REMOVE the word “GUILTY” from the space beneath “Plea to
   Offense” and substitute the words “NOT GUILTY”;

      We REMOVE the words “19.02 (C) Penal Code” from the space
      beneath “Statute for Offense” and substitute the words “19.02(b)(1) and
      (2) Penal Code.”
Additionally, the trial court’s bill of costs is MODIFIED as follows:
      We REMOVE the following charges: (i) JURY FEE $1.00, and (ii)
      SPECIALTY COURT $25.00; and

      We REMOVE the amount “$10.00” from the entry for “COURT
      HOUSE SEC FEE” and INSERT “$5.00” for this entry.
      We REMOVE the amount “$185.00” from the entry for “CONS
      STATE FEES,” and INSERT “$133.00” for this entry.
As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 31st day of May, 2023.

                                       –5–