Eduardo Martinez v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 01-15-00592-CR

Judge: Rebeca A. Huddle

Court: In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Alan Keith Curry
Devon Anderson
Bridget Holloway

Defendant's Attorney:

Nicole DeBorde

Description: After Martinez was indicted for the offense of aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon causing serious bodily injury, he pleaded guilty in exchange for a
recommendation from the State that adjudication be deferred and he be placed on
community supervision for eight years, pay $11,000 in restitution, and perform 300
hours of community service. The trial court followed the recommendation, deferred
adjudication, placed Martinez on community supervision for eight years, and
ordered him to perform 300 hours of community service and pay $11,000 in
restitution.
The State moved to adjudicate Martinez’s guilt in 2008, 2009, and early 2014,
but it dismissed each of these motions for various reasons. In November 2014, the
State moved to adjudicate Martinez’s guilt a fourth time, alleging seven violations
of the terms and conditions of his community supervision, including committing a
new law violation while on community supervision.
At the hearing on the State’s motion, Martinez pleaded “not true” to each of
the seven allegations. After receiving evidence and hearing the testimony of several
witnesses, the trial court found that Martinez had committed the new law violation
and granted the State’s motion. The trial court entered a judgment adjudicating guilt
and sentenced Martinez to 20 years’ confinement. The judgment ordered Martinez
to pay $549 in court costs.
Discussion
In his sole issue, Martinez contends that the evidence is insufficient to support
$255 of the $325 sheriff’s fee assessed against him as part of the $549 in court costs
assessed in the judgment. The bill of costs included in the appellate record reflects
that Martinez was assessed five $50 charges for “serving capias” and one $5 charge
for “arrest w/o warrant/capias” as part of the $325 sheriff’s fee, but Martinez argues
that the record does not support the imposition of these costs.
A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law
A defendant convicted of a felony offense must pay certain statutorily
mandated costs and fees. See Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385, 389 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2014). “[W]e review the assessment of court costs on appeal to determine if
there is a basis for the cost, not to determine if there was sufficient evidence offered
at trial to prove each cost, and traditional Jackson evidentiary-sufficiency principles
do not apply.” Id. at 390. “[W]hen a specific amount of court costs is written in the
judgment, an appellate court errs when it deletes the specific amount if there is a
basis for the cost.” Id. at 389.
Section 102.011 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes assessment of
fees for services performed by peace officers. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art.
102.011; see also Love v. State, No. 03-15-00462-CR, 2016 WL 1183676, at *1
(Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 22, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication). Among other things, section 102.011 authorizes the imposition of the
following costs as part of a sheriff’s fee:
(1) $5 . . . for making an arrest without a warrant;
(2) $50 for executing or processing an issued arrest warrant, capias, or capias pro fine . . . .
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 102.011(a)(1), (2).
B. Analysis
The bill of costs included in the appellate record reflects that the costs assessed
in the judgment include a $325 sheriff’s fee. The bill of costs further reflects that
$255 of the $325 sheriff’s fee is comprised of five $50 charges for serving capias
and one $5 charge for arrest without a warrant. Martinez acknowledges that article
102.011 authorizes the assessment of $50 for serving capias and $5 for arrests
without a warrant, but argues that the record does not support the imposition of these
charges. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 102.011(a)(1), (2).
However, the standard for upholding the imposition of a cost is whether there
is a basis for that cost, and not whether sufficient evidence supports its imposition.
See Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 390; Love, 2016 WL 1183676, at *1. The record
supports the assessment of the challenged fees. The record reflects that Martinez
was initially arrested pursuant to a warrant, and that issuance of capias was requested
with the filing of each of the four motions to adjudicate, corresponding to five
instances of serving capias. The State further asserts that Martinez’s new law
violation formed the basis for an arrest without a warrant. These events reflected in
the record “arguably might have . . . served as a basis” for the complained-of costs.
See Love, 2016 WL 1183676, at *2.
We overrule Martinez’s sole issue.

Outcome: