Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 10-28-2020
Case Style:
Bobby Carl Vonck v. The State of Texas
Case Number: 02-19-00125-CR
Judge: Elizabeth Kerr
Court: Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
Plaintiff's Attorney: Debra A. Windsor
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
Weatherford, TX - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant Bobby Carl Vonck charged with Injury to a Child, Elderly or Disabled Individual.
In this community-supervision-revocation appeal, Appellant Bobby Carl Vonck
complains of two fees assessed as part of his original conviction. Because he failed to
preserve his arguments, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
In 2017, Vonck pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain to an injury-to-a-child
charge. He was convicted, sentenced to ten years, fined $500, and billed $348 in court
costs. The trial court suspended the sentence in favor of ten years’ community
supervision. Both the fine and $348 in court costs were noted on the judgment and
the community-supervision order (which was signed by Vonck). Vonck, having
waived his right to appeal in the plea-bargain agreement, did not appeal the trial
court’s judgment.
In 2019, the State moved to revoke Vonck’s community supervision due to his
possession and use of methamphetamine, his failure to pay required court costs and
fees, and his failure to complete assigned community service. Vonck pleaded true to
the State’s allegations, and the trial court revoked his community supervision and
sentenced him to nine years’ incarceration. Vonck’s $500 fine and $348 in court costs
remained unpaid at the time of the revocation.
On appeal, Vonck challenges two of the assessed court costs—the timepayment fee and the juror-reimbursement fee. Vonck argues that the time-payment
fee is unconstitutional and that the juror-reimbursement fee is inappropriate because
no jury was “ever involved in either [his] original guilty plea or his probation
3
revocation hearing.” But Vonck failed to preserve his arguments by appealing the
assessment of fees when they were initially imposed with his 2017 conviction.1
Generally, an appellant cannot complain about community-supervision
conditions, or matters related to the initial proceeding imposing community
supervision, during a revocation proceeding unless the appellant objected during the
proceeding at which the trial court imposed community supervision. See Gutierrez v.
State, 380 S.W.3d 167, 174–78 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). This rule has been held to
include issues of court costs. Wiley v. State, 410 S.W.3d 313, 320–21 (Tex. Crim. App.
2013); see also Perez v. State, 424 S.W.3d 81, 85–86 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (noting, in
deferred-adjudication revocation, that the defendant had waived his right to appeal
with notice of the assessment of court costs assessed in deferred-adjudication order);
cf. Holmes v. State, 380 S.W.3d 307, 308 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, pet. ref’d) (“[A]
challenge to the constitutionality of a statute is a forfeitable right . . . .”).
In light of Vonck’s failure to preserve his arguments, we must overrule his
points on appeal and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Outcome: Though the State has not challenged Vonck’s arguments on preservation
grounds, we must independently review error preservation as a systemic requirement.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: