Anthony Terrell Latson v. State
440 S.W.3d 119
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Anthony Terrell Latson was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery (with one prior felony enhancement) and sentenced to 75 years imprisonment and a $7,500 fine.
- The trial court's judgment included a handwritten assessment of $409 in court costs.
- During voir dire the trial judge commented on the meaning of "beyond a reasonable doubt," stating courts have not defined it and that it is what a juror believes "in your heart, in your mind."
- Latson did not object to the judge's voir dire comments at trial but later claimed on appeal those remarks constituted fundamental error by tainting the presumption of innocence.
- Latson also appealed the assessment of a specific $409 in court costs, arguing the record lacks a signed bill of costs to support that amount.
Issues
| Issue | Latson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judge's voir dire comments on "beyond a reasonable doubt" constituted fundamental error that tainted presumption of innocence | Comments defined reasonable doubt as what jurors feel "in their heart," thus undermining presumption of innocence and shifting burden | Comments did not shift burden, did not indicate guilt, and did not tell jurors to ignore instructions; error not preserved but not fundamental here | Court held comments did not constitute fundamental error and overruled the issue |
| Whether the trial court erred by assessing $409 in court costs without record support | $409 is unsupported by a signed bill of costs or other record evidence; judgment should not state a specific amount | Costs are statutorily mandated but a specific dollar amount requires evidentiary support (bill of costs); the JIMS printout is not a proper bill | Court held no record support for the $409 figure, deleted the specific amount from the judgment and affirmed as modified |
Key Cases Cited
- Blue v. State, 41 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (plurality opinion on juror instruction and reasonable doubt)
- Fuentes v. State, 991 S.W.2d 267 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (trial-court voir dire comments on reasonable doubt not preserved by failure to object)
- Jasper v. State, 61 S.W.3d 413 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (voir dire comments did not taint presumption of innocence)
- Johnson v. State, 389 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (trial court erred in assessing specific costs without record evidence)
- Jelks v. State, 397 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (unsigned JIMS printout is not a proper bill of costs)
- Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2009) (withdrawal/enforcement of inmate funds is civil in nature)
- Haro v. State, 371 S.W.3d 262 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (voir dire comments on reasonable doubt did not taint presumption of innocence)
- Ganther v. State, 187 S.W.3d 641 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (similar conclusion regarding voir dire comments)