Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 01-09-2021
Case Style:
Shannon Carneil Spurlock v. The State of Texas
Case Number: 12-19-00360-CR
Judge: BRIAN HOYLE
Court: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
Plaintiff's Attorney: Mr. Michael J. West
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
- Criminal defense attorney represented Shannon Carneil Spurlock with a Injury to a Child, Elderly or Disabled Individual charge.
Appellant was charged by two separate indictments with injury to a child, a third degree
felony as alleged in the indictments.
1 The State alleged that Appellant had previously been
finally convicted of the felony offense of possession of a controlled substance, elevating his
punishment range to imprisonment for two to twenty years.2
The State designated trial court cause number 007-1431-12 for trial. Appellant pleaded
“not guilty” and the case proceeded to a jury trial, which ended by the court granting Appellant’s
motion for a mistrial.
Thereafter, Appellant entered into a plea bargain with the State wherein Appellant
pleaded “guilty” in trial court cause number 007-1432-12, “true” to the enhancement allegation
in that indictment, and acknowledged his guilt in the unadjudicated offense alleged in trial court
1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04 (a) (3) (West 2019).
2 See id. § 12.42 (a) (West 2019).
2
cause number 007-1431-12.3
Pursuant to the plea bargain, the State recommended seven years
deferred adjudication community supervision with certain terms and conditions. The trial court
followed the State’s recommendation and placed Appellant on community supervision.
Thereafter, the State filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt based upon several
allegations that Appellant violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. At a
hearing on the motion to adjudicate, Appellant pleaded “true” to the allegations that he violated
his community supervision. The trial court found the allegations to be “true,” proceeded to find
Appellant “guilty,” and sentenced him to imprisonment for twelve years. This appeal followed.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL COURT COSTS
In one issue, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing the “time payment”
fee previously authorized by Texas Local Government Code, Section 133.103 in its judgment.4
The State concedes that this fee is facially unconstitutional.
We have held that the time payment fee previously authorized by Section 133.103 is
facially unconstitutional. Irvin v. State, No. 12-19-00347-CR, 2020 WL 5406276, at *7 (Tex.
App.—Tyler Sept. 9, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also Salinas
v. State, 523 S.W.3d 103, 112 n.54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017); Ovalle v. State, 592 S.W.3d 615,
618 n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, pet. filed); Simmons v. State, 590 S.W.3d 702, 712 (Tex.
App.–Waco 2019, pet. filed); Dulin v. State, 583 S.W.3d 351, 353 (Tex. App.—Austin 2019,
pet. granted); Johnson v. State, 573 S.W.3d 328, 340 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019,
pet. filed) (concluding that, because the portions of time payment fee authorized by subsections
(b) and (d) of Section 133.103 were deposited in general revenue and were not sufficiently
3 See id. § 12.45 (a) (West 2019) (“A person may, with the consent of the attorney for the state, admit
during the sentencing hearing his guilt of one or more unadjudicated offense and request the court to take each into
account in determining sentence for the offense or offenses of which he stands adjudged guilty.”).
4 The Texas Legislature passed legislation, effective January 1, 2020, that transfers Texas Local
Government Code, Section 133.103 to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 102.030 and revises the statute to
provide that all of the fees collected under the section are “to be used for the purpose of improving the collection of
outstanding court costs, fines, reimbursement fees, or restitution or improving the efficiency of the administration of
justice in the county or municipality.” See Act of May 23, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., S.B. 346, § 2.54, 2019 Tex. Sess.
Law Serv. Ch. 1352. The changes apply only to a cost, fee, or fine assessed on a conviction for an offense
committed on or after the effective date of the Act. Id. § 5.01. Because the offense in this case was committed before
January 1, 2020, the former law applies. See Ovalle v. State, 592 S.W.3d 615, 617 n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, pet.
filed).
3
allocated to administration of criminal justice system, those subsections were facially
unconstitutional as violating the separation-of-powers provision of Texas Constitution).
However, we do not agree that the trial court assessed the time payment fee in this case.
The judgment adjudicating guilt reflects that Appellant owes $0 in court costs. The bill of costs
shows that Appellant owes $669 in court costs and states the following:
An additional time payment fee of $25.00 will be assessed if any part of a fine, court
costs, or restitution is paid on or after the date the judgment assessing the fine, court costs or
restitution is entered. See TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN., §133.103.
The bill of costs itemizes each cost, and the time payment fee is neither itemized nor
included in the $669 total. Thus, while the bill of costs states that the time payment fee could be
assessed, the record does not show that it was assessed. Because the record does not show that
the time payment fee was assessed, we conclude Appellant’s argument is without merit. See Orr
v. State, 12-19-00398-CR, 2020 WL 6380335, at *7 (Tex. App.—Tyler Oct. 30, 2020, no pet.).
Outcome: Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: