Court Opinion

ID: 3072947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 00:51:32.731016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:49.149914
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                           ____________________
                              NO. 09-14-00061-CR
                           ____________________

                           IN RE BRETT W. LIGON

_______________________________________________________            ______________

                               Original Proceeding
________________________________________________________            _____________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In this mandamus proceeding, the Montgomery County District Attorney,

Brett W. Ligon, contends that the Ninth District Court of Montgomery County,

Texas, rendered judgments in four criminal cases, trial court cause numbers 12-10-

10656-CR, 13-07-07725-CR, 13-12-13815-CR, and 13-04-04145-CR, but failed to

assess statutory court costs that are mandated by statute. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc.

Ann. art. 42.16 (West 2006); see also Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 102.021 (West

Supp. 2013). We requested responses from the real parties in interest, William

Wayne Warren, John Leonard Joehlin, David Paul Currier, and Brandon Dean

Holifield, but none were filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b)(1).

                                         1
      The trial court abused its discretion in the Warren, Joehlin, Currier, and

Holifield cases by failing to assess costs. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts.

42.15, 42.16 (West 2006 & Supp. 2013). The trial judge’s initials appear on the

judgments in the space provided for costs. The State filed motions to assess costs.

The trial court denied the State’s motions in the Warren, Joehlin, and Currier cases.

The trial court has not acted on the motion in Holifield’s case.

      “Court costs are pre-determined, legislatively-mandated obligations” that are

required to be assessed against a convicted defendant. Houston v. State, 410
S.W.3d 475, 477-78 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013, no pet.). A judgment of

conviction must adjudge the costs against the defendant and order their collection.

See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.16. Court costs do not need to be included

in the oral pronouncement. Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Tex. Crim. App.

2009). Except for attorney’s fees, the legislatively-mandated court costs must be

imposed regardless of indigence. Johnson v. State, 405 S.W.3d 350, 355 (Tex.

App.—Tyler 2013, no pet.). Court costs are payable when the cost bill is produced.

See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 103.001 (West 2006).

      Because the mandamus record does not contain the cost bills for these cases,

we cannot determine the taxable costs required to be assessed in any of the cases

before us.

                                          2
      We grant the State’s petition and vacate the trial court’s orders of January

31, 2014, and we order the trial court to assess statutory court costs against the

defendants in trial court cause numbers 12-10-10656-CR, 13-07-07725-CR, 13-12-

13815-CR, and 13-04-04145-CR, as required by statute.

      PETITION GRANTED.

                                                             PER CURIAM

Submitted on February 11, 2014
Opinion Delivered February 11, 2014
Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.

                                          3