Court Opinion

ID: 9392801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-07 08:14:46.764927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:49.065645
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed May 4, 2023.

                                       In The

                     Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                               NO. 14-21-00454-CR

                           MARTIN CRUZ, Appellant
                                         V.
                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 184th District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                        Trial Court Cause No. 1544565

                      CONCURRING OPINION

      The majority is, of course, required to follow this court’s recent opinion in
Hernandez-Faced v. State, 661 S.W.3d 630 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2023, pet. filed). Nevertheless, the majority views Hernandez-Faced as
“erroneous” based on “little analysis.” I disagree.

      In Hernandez-Faced, we held:
      The plain language of the 2021 amendment establishes that
      appellant’s reading of the amendment is incorrect. See Bonds, 503
      S.W.3d at 624 (“To determine the collective intent of the Legislature,
      we look first to the literal text.”). Based on the plain language of the
      amendment, the changes to article 42.15(a-1) retroactively applied
      only to fines, fees, and costs, not the hearing requirement. Accepting
      appellant’s interpretation would lead to the absurd result that all prior
      judgments of conviction imposing fines, costs, or fees on a defendant
      without a hearing on the record would be subject to being declared
      invalid. If the Legislature intended such far-reaching effects, it could
      have included “hearings” in Section 5. Because it did not, we reject
      appellant’s proffered interpretation.

Id. at 638–39. The reasoning in Hernandez-Faced is correct; the changes to article
42.15(a-1) only apply retroactively with respect to fines, fees, and costs. Just as
this court stated in Hernandez-Faced, the majority’s statutory interpretation in this
case would lead to an absurd result. While the majority criticizes the length of the
Hernandez-Faced analysis, sometimes less is more.
      I concur in the majority’s analysis as to the first issue and its conclusion that
the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, but I respectfully disagree with
the majority’s reasoning and analysis as to the second issue.

                                       /s/       Randy Wilson
                                                 Justice

Panel consists of Justices Spain, Poissant, and Wilson (Spain, J., majority)
Publish—Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

                                             2